Abortion

Prison Time for Pennsylvania Mom Who Bought Abortion Pill Online for Teen Daughter

|

Jennifer Ann Whalen will spent 12 to 18 months in prison for illegally obtaining the abortion pills misoprostol and mifepristone for her 16-year-old daughter. Whalen, a nurse's aid, ordered the drugs from an online pharmacy in Europe, violating a Pennsylvania law that abortion must be performed by a physician. On Friday, a judge sentenced Whalen to the prison time plus a $1,000 fine and 40 hours of post-prison community service for the felony offense.

abortionpillrx.com

Whalen said her teen daughter wanted to terminate her pregnancy, but the nearest abortion clinic to their home in Washingtonville, Pennsylvania, was 74 miles away. Per state law, anyone seeking an abortion must first visit a clinic for a counseling session and then wait at least 24 hours before having the procedure or obtaining the abortion pill (referred to as a "medical abortion"). Getting the pill at a clinic generally costs between $300 and $600; the drugs Whalen obtained for her daughter online were $45. 

But the girl experienced severe cramping and bleeding—a not uncommon side effect of misoprostol and mifepristone. Whalen took her to the local hospital, which is how the matter came to the attention of authorities. 

People still talk about the repercussions of restricting abortion access by invoking coat hangers and "back-alley" abortions. But in the 21st century, women who can't legally terminate pregnancies are probably more apt to turn to online pharmacies. "There are thousands of websites selling Cytotec for as little as $45 to $75," The New Republic reported in 2012. 

Even if there's nothing wrong with the quality of these online drugs, a number of women who take them will inevitably end up needing medical attention. In some 2 to 8 percent of cases, the abortion pill regimen fails and surgical abortion is still required. Failure to seek medical attention could result in fatal infections. But as we see in Whalen's case, seeking medical attention can result in prison time.

While the fact that Whalen was obtaining the drugs for her daughter will surely be a fixation for some, that's not necessarily what this case turns on (note that she didn't force or trick her daughter into taking it). An adult woman who ordered the pills online for herself could still be held criminally liable for "performing" her own abortion in Pennsylvania and many other states.

"A practitioner might be able to perform this, but a lay person is not permitted to take this kind of responsibility which is a huge responsibility," wrote Montour County Judge Gary Norton in his decision concerning Whalen.

But unlike surgical abortions, taking the abortion pill is something a lay person can very easily do on their own, practically speaking. Medical supervision is still important to see that the pill is used properly—it's only recommended in the first 9 weeks of pregnancy—and in case complications arise; it could, however, be done via video consultation for women unable to get to a clinic in person. (For research on the safety of this process, see here.) Yet laws prohibiting precisely this are becoming more common, with at least 11 states specifically banning "telemedicine" abortion. Others specifically bar nurse practitioners from dispensing the drugs, requiring a physician to be present in the room.

NEXT: School Board Bans Chapstick: Gateway Drug to What ... Maybe Burt's Bees Lip Balm?

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. The regulatory state is rock-bottomed and copper-sheathed. Progressives must be thrilled.

    1. Actually the Neo-Conservatives are since these regulations are a perfect example of their “smaller less intrusive govt.”

      1. OH shit. I never realized the Total Regulatory State might be used in ways we disapprove!

      2. 1. Neoconservatives are not committed to “smaller less intrusive govt”.

        Some of them pretended to wear that mantle in order to get Bush into office in 2000, but they quickly took it off and haven’t worn it since.

        2. Neoconservatives and pro-lifers are not the same thing.

        Yes, there is a lot of overlap, but there exist (some) pro-abortion neocons and (many) pro-life non-neocons.

        1. It’s pro-abortion/anti-abortion. Pro-life and pro-choice are both bullshit, obfuscatory terms. But thanks for letting us know where you stand.

          1. Did you bring enough secret decoder rings to share with the whole class?

  2. “seeking medical attention can result in prison time”

    No, violating the abortion laws can, in certain rare circumstances, result in prison time, and fortunately this is one of those circumstances.

    1. Though professional abortions should bear the brunt of enforcement.

      1. abortionists

    2. Obviously you don’t like abortion and think it should be illegal.

      But it is legal. And all these people did was fail to jump through some hoops before doing something that is otherwise perfectly legal.

      Would you find this an acceptable use of the law if it had to do with something other than abortion? I really think that the abortion aspect of this case is totally irrelevant.

      1. “But it is legal.”

        No, it’s legal in some cases and not in others. And in those cases where it *is* “legal,” that legality is an injustice that cries to Heaven, or as Thomas Jefferson might put it, a violation of “the laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,” if you will pardon Jefferson’s theistic rhetoric.

        The argument that “if we’ve proceeding this far down a wicked path, then to be consistent we must go all the way to the bottom,” isn’t exactly persuasive to the likes of me.

        1. You’re arguing in the wrong place.

          1. The right place being…

            1. Not at Reason.

          2. The right place being…

            1. …Somewhere where pulling out the phrase ‘cries to Heaven’ doesn’t make you sound like a crazy person and completely destroys any legitimate moral argument by invoking supernatural concepts that other people may not agree with? ‘Cause God’ is not a worthy argument in libertarian circles.

              1. [Stands and claps slowly]

        2. Except that the only morally legitimate case you can make here is that the mother was an accessory to murder.

          The law that she is actually going to prison for violating is “only a physician can perform an abortion”.

          That law is not moral, and so its enforcement cannot possibly be moral either.

        3. You’re full of shit. And I could give a flying fuck what “convinces” you, stay out of my vagina you fucking asshole. The government should stay the fuck out of that decision, and idiots like you especially. I guess Jefferson believed that Slavery was in accord with the “laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” then? Why should we care what that douche believed? Hey you know what, you’re balls are going to create children, I say we fucking cut them off…

    3. Seeking medical attention, in this case, resulted in prison time. Therefore it is correct to say that seeking medical attention can result in prison time, your SoCon pedantry notwithstanding.

  3. If we consent to the self-ownership of teenage girls, the terrorists have won.

    1. Yes. I am agree with you. Just I don’t. Visit Jasa SEO

  4. fortunately this is one of those circumstances.

    YAY!

    But why didn’t they send the slut to prison, too?

    1. For crying out loud, can’t you see the difference between being a “slut” and killing your child?

      Ah, but “it’s not a child, or anyway not a person, etc.”

      OK, then, put the debate in *those* terms, don’t talk about some kind of mythical anti-slut crusade.

      1. And this story isn’t about abortion. It’s about stupid rules restricting access to medicines and medical services and criminalizing behavior simply because someone failed to ask permission of the right gatekeepers.

        1. Sorry, it *is* about abortion.

          There are still laws providing a *minimum* of protection to the unborn, and the idea that we must get rid of these laws for the sake of a foolish consistency is, indeed, a hobgoblin of little minds, present company excepted of course.

          1. Well, you see protection of the unborn, I see pointless hurdles in the way of obtaining legal medical services.

  5. Suppose some guy robs a convenience store, but during the robbery the shopkeeper shoots and wounds him. So the criminal goes to the hospital to get his bullet wound treated, and as a result the cops find him. Would we say then that “seeking medical attention can result in prison time?”

    1. Why does abortion turn certain libertarians into frothing “the law is the law” statists? The mind boggles.

      1. Well, to be fair to eddie, he doesn’t claim to be a libertarian. Just a fellow traveler on many issues.

        1. Yes.

          1. But some libertarians are with me on this –

            http://l4l.org/

            1. Oh, I know. And I will say that interactions with the pro-life contingent at H&R has changed my perspective on the fight over abortion a bit. I still think you are wrong about the moral status of the unborn and that your preferred policies would prove disastrous. But the basic anti-abortion position can be perfectly morally consistent and doesn’t necessarily mean that you have low regard for women or backwards social standards.

              But when you support any law, at all costs, as long as it in some way restricts abortion or makes it more of a hassle, you lose me.

              1. low regard for women or backwards social standards

                I think you need to go back to the Fluke-era fights over conception and see what the very same people were saying about women who wanted to have sex without becoming pregnant.

                The issue most had wasn’t about who pays, either.

                1. Don’t get me wrong. I think that a lot of people who oppose abortion have low regard for women and backwards beliefs. And eddie is being absurd here and in most every abortion thread. But I’m saying that the basic beliefs about abortion don’t necessarily have anything to do with that.

                  1. I agree, but for ever principled anti-abortion commenter like sloopyinca, there seems to be a couple of dozen fuckwits nattering about God and sluts.

                    1. See above for who mentioned sluts first.

                  2. That’s the H&R version of a compliment, thank you!

                  3. I see what Zeb is saying as well. The pro-abortion movement has largely argued that any anti-abortion stance is one that is inherently ‘anti-woman’, that is, they oppose it on grounds of women being more sexually active and autonomous (i.e. being ‘sluts’). And there are plenty of people who are anti-abortion for exactly that reason. But there are, without a doubt, people who are anti-abortion simply because they do see it as a legitimate moral issue, and to think otherwise is a gross oversimplification of why the anti-abortion movement continues.

                    1. I think it would be very interesting if we could ever clear out the nonsense and debris from culture war to argue the issue on its merits. My thought is that once they invent the artificial womb, the debate will rapidly shift to a pro-life consensus and future generations will (somewhat unfairly) see the pro-choicers as barbarians, with zero historical context to evaluate why one might be pro-choice. (In this sense, it will be somewhat similar to how slavery is evaluated today without considering the economic conditions which made it necessary or extremely tempting for the societies which engaged in it.)

                      I think it’s self-evident that artificial wombs would resolve the tension at the heart of the abortion debate, perhaps better than any law ever could.

                    2. That’s my hope also. Artificial wombs are creepy and Brave New Worldish, but on the plus side they’ll destroy many of the excuses for the current abortion regime, so on net, probably a good thing.

                    3. I’d say there is nearly a 98% probability that the Pope would declare artificial wombs an abomination.

                    4. “I’d say there is nearly a 98% probability that the Pope would declare artificial wombs an abomination.”

                      Why not wait and see?

                    5. Depends on who the Pope is

                    6. Just as long as the artificial wombs don’t come about as Frank Herbert envisioned.

                    7. Just as long as the artificial wombs don’t come about as Frank Herbert envisioned.

                      Talk about anti-woman pro-life tech, right there…

      2. Why does abortion turn certain libertarians into frothing “the law is the law” statists? The mind boggles.

        Well, not an actual libertarian as noted below. Also, there is never any give and take with the fetus fancy crowd. That’s the problem with absolutist positions.

        1. You should hear what they say about libertarian “absolutism.”

          1. Libertarian absolutists are anarchists. And yes, most people don’t have a lot of good things to say about anarchists.

            1. Oh, I think if you ask around you’ll find that many people think libertarians *in general* are absolutists.

              1. Well, those people have clearly never met any real absolutists.

                1. I don’t think *I’m* a prolife absolutist either, for example. I believe in the legitimacy of certain actions which forseeably result in death – eg, waging just wars, building highways knowing that there will be lots of accidents, etc. etc.

                  So absolutism is in the eye of the beholder.

    2. Robbery is otherwise legal?

      1. Yes, there are circumstances in which robbery is legal – cf, “civil forfeiture,” and a plethora of other examples which libertarians can easily think of.

        So, but the logic of posters here, if robbery is legal in *some* cases, it should be legal in *all* cases!

        1. *by* the logic

        2. No, robbery should be illegal in all cases. Robbery is an undeniable violation of a specific individual’s rights. Abortion is a much more complicated issue.

          1. robbery should be illegal in all cases. Robbery is an undeniable violation of a specific individual’s rights. Abortion is a much more complicated issue.

            Funny how you assert that with essentially the same fervor Eddie has for his own position. How do you know that robbery is a violation of a person’s rights in a way that abortion is not? I suppose you’ve derived a perfect theory for property rights which doesn’t involve non-sequitur and under which a person can be assured that what they consider “theirs” is, in fact, theirs?

            I will laugh if you cite Locke in your defense of property rights, given that his understanding of such is basically rooted in a Reformed interpretation of scripture.

            1. I suppose any moral standard ultimately comes down to appeals to divine authority or some sort of gut feeling or personal preference. Self ownership seems obvious to most people, but it’s still an unproven axiom just as “God imbues us all with the full moral status of a human being at the moment of conception” is.
              So perhaps it would be better to say that there is more general agreement that robbery is wrong in all cases.

              1. I suppose any moral standard ultimately comes down to appeals to divine authority or some sort of gut feeling or personal preference

                Agreed. Essentially one is forced to either appeal to the unprovable (God or other “Great Chain of Being”-type stuff) to justify morality, or essentially categorize it as a special case of aesthetics. Personally I believe that such is a very compelling reason to believe in something higher than oneself. Morality is as real and important to the world as mathematics despite both being essentially abstract and not directly observable.

                perhaps it would be better to say that there is more general agreement that robbery is wrong in all cases

                Perhaps it would, but I very much doubt that is the case. Most people, for example, would not consider taxation or other state-approved forms of deprivation to be a theft; most would not embrace the libertarian approach to property; most would not find a problem with “small” amounts of theft; etc. Of course there also exist societies without a well-defined sense of private property under which theft is not an important concept outside of misuse of community resources. I would say that there are just as many problems with the concept of theft in the minds of people as with any other moral plank.

            2. Tell you what, you can assert that my position is the same as Eddie’s when you can prove objectively that a fetus is a human being. Otherwise, take your nihilist sophistry bullshit and fuck off.

              1. I can’t “objectively” prove the humanity of anyone. Hell, I can’t even define humanity without invoking unprovable metaphysics. Can you?

                I also can’t objectively prove the existence of property rights or a theory of such which is objectively fair or non-arbitrary. Can you?

                If so, I’d like to see a formal proof regarding the humanity of, say, black people or children who are under 3 years old, based on objectively-determined principles of humanity which we can all observe and agree to be unique to humanity. Then I’ll do the same with the fetus, and we’ll see that we both have proofs of similar construct (essentially identifying traits exclusive of humans and showing that our groups correspond to these traits), and we’ll be no closer to agreement since you will declare your exclusive traits to be more important than the ones I have identified.

                1. I think you are correct here, TIT. Which is why I don’t really try to argue to change anyone’s mind on this issue. There is a fundamental metaphysical disagreement that I don’t think is possible to resolve rationally.

                  I usually try to avoid the abortion debates entirely at this point, but this one is a bit more interesting as it raises the question of whether, even assuming abortion is wrong, if it is appropriate to use legislation like this to discourage a practice that is not itself against the law.

                  1. It is an interesting question and I admit that I don’t have a compelling answer, but at this point I am not convinced by arguments which claim that consistency of a legal system (or lack thereof) will motivate changes away from or towards more consistency.

    3. Fuck off, slaver.

      1. And you have a nice day, too!

    4. The two do not equate…robbery and medical abortion, your analogy makes no sense.

  6. in those cases where it *is* “legal,” that legality is an injustice that cries to Heaven

    Fuck the Pope, and fuck you.

    1. To be fair, fuck Thomas Jefferson, too. He’s the guy who spoke of the laws of nature and of Nature’s God.

      I like to tweak atheists about Jefferson, perhaps it is censurable weakness on my part, if so I apologize.

      1. How do you know Nature’s God doesn’t like abortion? He doesn’t seem to mind male lions killing cubs so they can make their own, or loads of other stuff like that that happens in nature.

        You are opposed to abortion. That’s OK. But your argument from theology means as much to a non-believer as it would mean to you is I wrote “God loves abortion” on a piece of paper and handed it to you as evidence to support my side in this argument.

      2. Thomas Jefferson wasn’t talking about abortion. You’re just taking his words out of context as an appeal to authority because you apparently have no rational support for your argument.

        1. Winner, winner, chicken dinner.

        2. So, you agree that there is such a thing as “the laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,” you simply don’t think Jefferson would have applied these principles in a prolife way?

          Or do you deny that there is any such thing as a God (of Nature or otherwise), and that it’s *Jefferson* who’s the extremist?

          1. And the false choice. Are you playing fallacy Bingo or something?

            1. Quoting Jefferson on point is the same as quoting Jefferson for any point you want to make.

              “Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.”

              See, this passage is clearly about the merits of a playoff system over the bowl system.

              1. No shit. Everyone knows TJ was anti-BCS.

              2. I took it as an argument against professional soccer…

      3. Don’t get too smug about that, Eddie. Your Jefferson scholarship isn’t really that robust so those moral victories are mostly in your head.

        1. So you don’t like my apology?

          The thing is, Jefferson citations are considered OK if the quotation is against the Religious Right, see for example this *Reason* link:

          https://reason.com/archives/201…..e-gay-away

          So it’s OK to quote Jefferson triumphantly when needed to attack the “Christian Right,” or to question the miracles of the Bible, or to criticize “monkish superstitution,” or to denounce trinitarian theology. Christopher Hitchens used to love this stuff, and apparently Reason still does.

          But quote Jefferson’s remarks supporting the existence of God, or the supernatural origin of human rights, and you’re a theocrat and a Papist!

          (Well, I *am* a Papist, so you got that part right).

          If you want to repudiate Jefferson and the Founding Fathers, then be my guest, but then don’t turn around and say *I’m* the one out of step with our traditions of freedom.

          1. How does the existence of God or Natural Law add anything to your argument? You are simply assuming the conclusion you prefer. You have made no argument to connect what Jefferson said to the question of abortion.

            1. As I said, I like tweaking atheists about Jefferson, at least since the late Christopher Hitchens tried to enlist Jefferson to the atheist cause.

              Hitchens even took a leaf from the Mormons’ book and posthumously baptized Jefferson as an atheist, claiming that if he (Jefferson) had lived longer, he would have embraced the true atheist faith.

              I don’t think it’s 100% to taunt people who don’t have a record of quoting Jefferson, but Reason magazine as a whole *does* have such a history.

              1. I don’t think it’s 100% *fair* – but I’m commenting on the Internet, dude, give me some slack to go crazy once in a while, sanity is boring.

                1. I really don’t think anyone cares if you “tweak” them or not, you’re a big government fascist, I would be more upset if you agreed with me.

          2. Never go full retard, Notorious.

          3. Um, I’m not finding any comments from me in that link you provided. I’m not finding the term “papist” in that thread.

            And I’m certainly not finding my having called you a papist here. Care to reference the exact time of that post, or link to my actual post?

            Your Jefferson scholarship remains shallow despite all your whining.

            1. Jensen|9.8.14 @ 12:31PM|#

              Oh joy, a thread on abortion. And a Papist. *grabs popcorn*

              1. “Jensen” is not spelled the same as “Tonio.”

                1. Oh, I said “you got that part right” – sorry about that, I had meant to use the plural “you.”

              2. See, now I have to go up the ante and start calling you an ultramontanist because you’re just not giving me the attention I deserve.

                1. Papist, mackerel-snapper, Romanist, it’s all good.

          4. I’ve read quite a bit about Jefferson. IMHO, Jefferson spoke of god because he was expected to. No one elects a professed atheist in 1800. He played the game, as I believe Franklin did.

            Regardless, he was by no means a devout bleever.

            1. I think Jefferson was more of a closet Deist along Voltairean lines than an atheist. Atheists at the time were considered more than a bit foolish, in part because of reasoning about natural rights and the nature of existence which were in the vogue at that time.

              You are right that he would probably not be considered a Christian, or that if he does he would have been extremely heterodox in his beliefs.

              Franklin I think was more a lapsed Christian than anything particularly special in terms of Deism or atheism.

            2. I didn’t say *devout,* but I reject the “let’s baptize him an atheist post-mortem” reasoning. His believed in God (in private correspondence, where he didn’t have to “play games,” he called himself a unitarian back when unitarians were still theists), and I see reason to suppose that his God-talk was any less sincere than any of his other remarks.

              Some people seem to treat Jefferson as a one-way ratchet, who spoke sincerely when denouncing what he considered abuses of religion, but was simply lying when he told the public (and private correspondents like John Adams) of his belief in God.

              I find this interpretation, shall we say, unproven.

              1. I see *no* reason to suppose etc.

                1. Now, Jefferson didn’t go out and tell the public about his unitarian, non-orthodox beliefs. He kept his mouth shut. But he didn’t go around reciting the Nicene Creed or trying to fool the public on the topic.

  7. The Story is not about Abortion
    The Story is not about restricting access
    The Store is about a Medical professional who violated the law!

    Yes the laws are restrictive and the waiting period can be considered intrusive (yet it is OK to have to wait when you purchase a firearm’) this case is about a person who through their profession is well aware of the aws and willingly decide to break them.

    1. Laws – not “aws”

    2. What “medical professional” is involved here, and how did he/she break the law?

      1. The mom is a nurse’s aid, and AZLefty is a cookie cutter troll.

        1. The mom is a nurse’s aid

          That’s what I get for skimming the article. Still, I don’t see how she was acting in a professional capacity here.

          1. She wasn’t, and AZLefty is a boring cookie cutter troll.

    3. yet it is OK to have to wait when you purchase a firearm

      No.

      It isn’t.

  8. and the hobby horse you rode on.

  9. I’m OK with this. A parent should not have the authority to make their children abort their grandchildren, and they certainly shouldn’t do so when they have no idea what the hell they’re doing or what the medical risks involved are. This is terrible parenting and (if you are pro-life as I am) terrible ethics all wrapped in a pretty bow. I think most people will see examples like this and Kermit Gosnell and find the regulations in place to seek sound medical advice prior to messing with your body (and potentially, someone else’s body) both warranted and appropriate.

    1. Shorter TIT:

      Regulation is good when it supports my views.

      1. Yes, absolutely — just like with anyone. If you lived in a country where slavery, murder, or theft was legal, you would certainly approve of regulations which got in the way of people engaging in this legalized slavery, murder, or theft. For example, I’m fairly certain that you wouldn’t be screaming to the high heavens about the injustice of statutes preventing Christians from being sold into slavery during the Early Middle Ages and demanding their repeal since, after all, slavery is legal and we want to be consistent. No, you would support these statutes and demand a complete abolition of slavery because while you don’t want slavery in any case, you will take what you can get.

        In this case, the regulation also satisfies a public health function (especially as it involves seeking medical services for minors). We’re not talking about Tylenol here; abortion pills (while generally being safe) can have bad side-effects when it goes south and a child or teen isn’t really aware enough of their body or medicine to be able to make that decision on their own. If their guardian fucks up their role to keep their children in health this badly, I have zero problem with them being held accountable.

        1. Your analogy is inapt.

          A more analogous law would be a requirement for all slave trades to be conducted by a state-approved slave broker.

          Even if it did limit the trade somewhat, I would not support the law. The crime is enslavement; a lesser injustice in service to a greater justice is still an injustice.

          1. If you prefer to modify my analogy, that is fine. I personally would support your law in the hypothetical that you propose, given that the abolition of the greater wrong would immediately end the “lesser injustice” as well and also given that the greater injustice is not being punished or limited under a regime where it is considered a legal practice. I don’t see the injustice in hamstringing an evil practice; if that makes me a bad person, so be it.

            We’ll just have to agree to disagree, I suppose.

            1. the abolition of the greater wrong would immediately end the “lesser injustice”

              No, it would not. The precedent would then be set that unjust laws are acceptable as long as they are well intentioned.

              Now, pro-lifers did not set this precedent in our society, but they are riding the slippery slope like a water park ride.

              1. Like I said, I think we’ll just have to agree to disagree. After all, one most likely finds the existence of the state unappealing or at least upsetting, but unless one is an anarchist one will also wish to enlist it in punishing murder, theft, etc. as long as it must exist.

    2. I think most people will see examples like this and Kermit Gosnell and find the regulations in place to seek sound medical advice prior to messing with your body (and potentially, someone else’s body) both warranted and appropriate.

      We know that most people don’t believe in self-ownership. I don’t understand how you expect that to help your case among people who do.

    3. I’m OK with this. A parent should not have the authority to make their children abort their grandchildren

      Whalen said her teen daughter wanted to terminate her pregnancy

      find the regulations in place to seek sound medical advice prior to messing with your body (and potentially, someone else’s body) both warranted and appropriate.

      Each of us owns ourselves, so it’s never appropriate.

      1. I don’t own my daughter. I don’t own my granddaughter. In the case of my daughter, I have a responsibility to make decisions for her health that are conscientious. While she is under my care and living in my house, this can include decisions which she disagrees with or did not come up with herself. In the case of my granddaughter, I have the responsibility to protect her life. Yes, if it’s simply my own body then be it on my head when some negative health consequence manifests — but in the case of another who is under my care (but not my property), I must be held to a higher standard. Pro-lifers assume that another is in the womb at some point relatively early in pregnancy, so in this case two people are directly being harmed by my decision not to seek medical counsel. The law’s outcome was reasonable given these issues.

        1. I don’t own my daughter. I don’t own my granddaughter.

          Neither does the state.

        2. You still provide no evidence for the assertion that the mother made (or had authority to make) her daughter abort.

        3. I don’t own my daughter. I don’t own my granddaughter.

          But you apparently believe the state does.

        4. In this case, the daughter wanted the abortion and the mother agreed. But if they did not agree, the most that can be done is kicking her out of the house.

          The daughter owns herself, so she has the right to remove any unwanted thing from her body. Even if you assume it’s a person, much how the mother would have the right to kick her out, the daughter has the right to kick the unwanted squatter out from within her too.

          1. That’s kind of nuts. The mother doesn’t have the right to kick her daughter out if it requires having her daughter die of exposure. The fact that the daughter has other options available to her which allows her to live independent of mom is what makes the decision a morally ambiguous one. If there was a 100% chance that kicking someone who you have a responsibility towards out of your home would result in death, you can be held liable for that decision. That is what abortion is if you assume personhood, and why it is considered morally offensive to the point of requiring the state to intervene.

            You don’t have to agree with personhood of the fetus, but at least try to understand why it is a different scenario from kicking out a squatter or an adult/late teens child.

          2. Does the mother have the right to kill her daughter as well as kick her out?

            apples-apples

          3. An unborn baby is not a “squatter”; he is, in fact right where he is supposed to be.

    4. You lost me at “pro-life.”

      1. How about “Opposed to antepartum infanticide”?

    5. She did not make her daughter do anything. You are the one who wants to make other people follow your religious views. Someday, if there is any justice in the world, you are going to find yourself in a situation where somebody is going to get to force their religious views on you.

  10. Oh joy, a thread on abortion. And a Papist. *grabs popcorn*

    1. What does a Catholic have to do with anything?

      1. I’m more just poking fun at Notorious’ attempts at ‘BUT GOD SAYS I’M RIGHT’ in the comments.

        1. Oh, Eddie has been burned enough that he knows “my god says so” doesn’t work here (although that loss of privilege still irks him). He’s now trying to coat that argument in deist/natural law/enlightenment terms, thus his recent crush on Jefferson.

          1. I’m taking advantage of the fact that *some* people on Reason (at least the writers) like to quote Jefferson as an authority, at least when it comes to criticizing “religious extremism.”

            So I get some naughty pleasure out of quoting some of Jefferson’s *other* remarks. So sue me.

  11. the logic of posters here, if robbery is legal in *some* cases, it should be legal in *all* cases!

    Yeah, okay. That makes perfect sense.

    I’m convinced.

  12. Whalen took her to the local hospital, which is how the matter came to the attention of authorities.

    What the fuck happened to doctor-patient confidentiality?

    1. The DEA threatened to arrest enough doctors as “accessories” to finish it off.

  13. Stupid kangaroo courts need to start harassing REAL criminals.

    http://www.Crypt-Tools.tk

  14. But the girl experienced severe cramping and bleeding?a not uncommon side effect of misoprostol and mifepristone.

    If this is true, why do abortionists have trouble getting admitting access to hospitals? Or are these treatable in a standard abortion clinic?

    1. Because pro-lifers are just as good at creating “fuck you” laws as progressives.

    2. I’m pretty sure any hospital will admit a person who is in pain and bleeding regardless of where else they had been or what drugs they had taken.

      The purpose of the laws requiring waiting periods and hospital admitting privileges is just to make it more difficult, time consuming and expensive to get an abortion or to set up an abortion clinic.

    3. It’s not that they have trouble, so much as anti-abortion people set up admitting privileges as a hurdle. Much like making abortion clinics conform to hospital specs. Your oral surgeon does just as serious surgeries as do abortion clinics, yet you don’t hear the BS clamoring for them to have admitting privileges, for their clinics to conform to hospital specs, etc.

  15. Angelina Jolie does not own her breasts. Society owns Angelina Jolie’s breasts. She should have to seek the approval of the government before making any decisions about having them removed. It’s selfish of her to think only of her own short term interests. Breasts which cannot speak on their own behalf deserve to live!

    1. Why, yes, the do consist entirely of cells containing that rights-granting Human DNA(tm).

      1. And left to themselves will grow into a pair of fully-formed human beings.

  16. Looks like everything is going as planned. Good job, Penn GOP.

  17. YAY!!!

    An Abortion thread. Just what the world needed.

    Note: I had Pan Pizza from Pizza Hut yesterday…Pan pizza is Deep dish in case you did not know.

    1. Pizza Hut is ok. Better than Dominoes and BlackJack. And Pan Pizza is filling, if not as tasty as New York-style thin crust, such as from Garlic Knot. However, these are all my personal judgements and completely subjective, so I cannot really be angry if you disagree with any of them.

  18. What the fuck happened to doctor-patient confidentiality?

    Those two bitches tried to break the cartel. They bought those drugs without cutting a “real” doctor in on the action.

  19. …(note that she didn’t force or trick her daughter into taking it).

    Like I’m going to believe the assertions of a woman willing to murder her own grandchild.

    “But you don’t think I would stoop to telling a fib!”

    1. Even the prosecutors charging her aren’t asserting that her daughter didn’t want the pill.

        1. But don’t let that stop you from making shit up, since the harlot obviously deserves everything she gets for being pro choice.

            1. You asserted that she forced her daughter to take the pill despite the complete lack of any evidence. IOW, you made it up because it made someone you disapprove of seem worse.

  20. I read this as:

    Mom can’t afford to take daughter to abortion clinic 74 miles away (requires 2 day+ trip).

    Mom procures far cheaper alternative for daughter.

    Mom gets daughter medical attention when needed.

    Government found out mom skirted nanny-state regulations when using cheaper alternative, decides to send mom to jail for 1-1.5 years, and likely take daughter into foster care for that time (single mom).

    Great job sticking it to the poor, Government! Another Life Improved (TM).

  21. Another sin punished. Hooray for the religious state. I thought we were supposed to have secular government’s not American Sharia governments. Who’s rights did this woman violate? That is the true definition of a crime–the violation of the rights of others without good cause.

    “Mistrust those in whom the urge to punish is strong.” Friedrich Nietzsche. That would be us, as in the U.S.

    All hail the imperial government! (Dissenters will be shot.)

    For any so-called Christians who might read this. Your all-knowing, almighty God created Satan knowing that he would be evil. Ergo, said God created evil.But then that’s logic, not emotion. If you say that God didn’t know that Satan would be evil, then you say that God is not all-knowing, which begs the question: What else is God not?

    1. “Who’s rights did this woman violate?”

      (scratches head), well, you got me there…

  22. Because pro-lifers are just as good at creating “fuck you” laws as progressives.

    ? ? ?motivation quotes
    ? ? ?3 Week Diet

  23. What do you mean this paragraph “A practitioner might be able to perform this, but a lay person is not permitted to take this kind of responsibility which is a huge responsibility,” wrote Montour County Judge Gary Norton in his decision concerning Whalen.

  24. You lost me at “pro-life.”

  25. Failure to seek medical attention could result in fatal infections. But as we see in Whalen’s case, seeking medical attention can result in prison time.
    visit : jual atap pvc

  26. It’s pro-abortion/anti-abortion. Pro-life and pro-choice are both bullshit, obfuscatory terms. But thanks for letting us know where you stand. See here: Jasa SEO and Jasa SEO Jakarta

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.