Enforcing Abortion Bans Is Much Harder Than Passing Them

The experience in Texas shows that workarounds pose daunting obstacles to such laws.


When Texas imposed strict limits on abortion last fall, the number of abortions performed by clinics in that state fell by half. But the actual decline in abortions was much smaller, because many women traveled to clinics in other states or used readily available drugs to end their pregnancies at home.

Those workarounds, recent research suggests, drastically limited the law's impact. That finding underlines the daunting challenges that opponents of abortion will face even if the Supreme Court gives states wide leeway to restrict the practice, as it seems inclined to do.

The Texas law prohibits abortion after fetal cardiac activity can be detected, which typically happens about six weeks into a pregnancy. During the first month after the law took effect at the beginning of September, the Texas Policy Evaluation Project reported, Texas clinics performed 50 percent fewer abortions than they did during the same month in 2020.

At the same time, however, the number of Texas women seeking abortions in nearby states rose dramatically. The same research group counted 5,574 out-of-state abortions obtained by Texas residents from September through December, more than 10 times the number during the same period in 2019.

That's an average of about 1,400 out-of-state abortions per month, which represents nearly two-thirds of the drop in reported Texas abortions. And that cross-border tally is surely an undercount, because it is limited to 34 clinics in seven states.

Meanwhile, Aid Access, which allows women to obtain mifepristone and misoprostol abortion pills from abroad based on prescriptions written by a doctor in Austria, saw a huge increase in requests from Texas. According to a February 25 report in JAMA Network Open, the daily average rose to 138 in the first week of September, up from 11 in late 2020 and early 2021.

That number fell sharply after the first week but remained far above the baseline, averaging 37 for the rest of September and 30 in October, November, and December. Overall, Aid Access received more than 4,500 requests from Texas between September 1 and the end of the year, or about 1,100 a month.

It's not clear how many of the women who obtained abortion pills via Aid Access actually used them, and there may be some overlap with the women who ultimately obtained surgical abortions in other states. But Aid Access is by no means the only source of abortion pills, which can be obtained through various websites, purchased over the counter in Mexico, or received in states that (unlike Texas) allow delivery by mail after an online consultation.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the use of mifepristone and misoprostol up to 10 weeks into a pregnancy. The method has potentially broad appeal in the United States, where four-fifths of abortions are performed at nine weeks or earlier.

Last December, the FDA permanently lifted a longstanding requirement that abortion pills be dispensed in person, opening the door to prescriptions via telemedicine and home delivery. That decision is apt to accelerate a preexisting trend: Based on preliminary data, the Guttmacher Institute (which supports abortion rights) reports that "medication abortions" accounted for 54 percent of the U.S. total in 2020, up from 39 percent in 2017.

The FDA still views abortion pills shipped from other countries as "misbranded and unapproved new drugs." In 2019, the agency sent Aid Access a warning letter to that effect. The organization was undeterred.

Even when drug-induced abortions have FDA approval, they may run afoul of state law. Texas, one of 19 states that restrict such abortions to medical facilities, recently acknowledged the failure of that rule by making it a felony to supply the requisite drugs for unsupervised use.

The fact that self-managed abortions are often illegal does not mean they can be stopped. Since the pills are legal in most jurisdictions, the challenge is even more formidable than the difficulties encountered by the war on drugs, which has a track record that no one should be keen to copy.

© Copyright 2022 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

NEXT: Video Shows California Cops Arresting Mom and Grandma for Filming Them

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 question is not whether something is preventable or not. The question is whether it is immoral or not. Sticking yourself with a needle? Not immoral, because it does not directly harm anyone. Declining to stick yourself with a needle? Not immoral, because it does not harm anyone.

    Poisoning, decapitating or otherwise terminating the life of a unique human life is immoral if you consider that life as possessing human rights. Bitching that it is evil for infringing the rights of women, or useless because women can circumvent it is immaterial. Outlawing murder has never prevented murder. But it has provided basic table-stakes by which a polity will govern itself.

    The question that Reason must answer is whether Abortion is a violation of the NAP or not.

    1. Oh wait; the police doooo.... Poison, decapitate and otherwise terminate stubborn trespassers all the time... Heck; they even do it when the trespasser actually has a Constitutional right to be there and has already left the property (i.e. Lavoy Finicum)...

      So keep crying a river over "natural" facts that there is nothing "individual" about a woman's internals and trying to dictate her about what's inside her is nothing but an excuse to dictate her specifically.

      1. You do realize the sum total of your post, especially in response to the core issue Overt posited is, "Because police murder some people, we should give them unfettered right to murder all people the same way we should give women unfettered right to abort all fetuses.", right?

        1. Yep.... Because pretending that my toe isn't a part of me but its own person that "YOU SPEAK FOR"; puts every part of Individual Liberty at risk...

          If anyone speaks for that toe; It's going to be me --- NOT YOU!
          Psycho dictator.

          Next up; How pregnant women who smoke, drink, or eat the wrong foods puts "part of them" at risk --- so let's save the world and make sure ALL Individual Liberty is lost to tyrant dictation.

          1. "Yep.... Because pretending that my toe isn't a part of me but its own person that "YOU SPEAK FOR"
            If anyone speaks for that toe; It's going to be me --- NOT YOU!"

            First of all, this analogy is wildly disingenuous. Every cell in your toe has the same exact genetic code as every other cell in your body. A fetus gets half of its DNA from the father and thus has a unique genetic code different from that of the mother.

            The suggestion that others have no right to speak for the interests of a baby, as if it could be rationally argued that it's in a baby's best interest to be aborted, is even more ridiculous than the toe analogy. The instinct towards self-preservation is hardwired into our DNA, and a person's interest in preventing the deprivation of their life is widely accepted as the most important private interest in constitutional law. These facts should be self-evident for anyone with a functioning frontal lobe. You are a moron.

            1. [JOIN NOW] I really make A LOT OF MONEY ($200-$300/hour) online from my laptop. Last month I received almost $50,000. this line work is simple and straightforward. nlp You don’t need to go to the office, it’s online work from home. You become independent after joining this position. I really appreciate my friend who pointed.
              It out to me SITE….., http://extradollars3.blogspot.com/

            2. "interests of a baby"....... Is that like interests in unicorns?
              You are the moron. You show that baby or just shut the F'up.

              1. No, it's nothing like interests in unicorns dip shit. In case you did not know, unicorns are mythical creatures. Clearly, you were born with one too many chromosomes.

                1. Calling me a "dip shit" didn't make that baby appear now did it?
                  So the foundation of your beliefs is still based on "mythical creatures".

          2. Could the pro-abortion people not stoop to such idiotic bullshit? Are you incapable of making an actual argument FOR abortion?

            1. Ever notice how the Anti-Choice crowd always has to DRAMATIZE everything?????? Ya know; like how propaganda gets made??

              "Pro-Choice = Pro-Abortion....."
              lol.... Yea; sound like a personal bullying problem to me.

              How about you keep your *personal* life your own instead of trying to shove it down everyone else's throat with a gov-gun.

          3. You do realize that substituting "me unfettered right to amputate my big toe" in place of "women unfettered right to abort all fetuses" doesn't make your argument more coherent, right? That my point wasn't about abortion, but your abjectly stupid argument?

            1. You know what would be an "abjectly stupid argument"???

              To all the sudden throw out the "stubborn trespasser" from the entire equation. Ya know like throwing out the entire equation that a pregnant woman isn't actually two different people....

              Why of course; it's the new cool-aid thing to do... Just ignore the crime being committed and just call any police shooting a 'murder'. Pro-Life and BLM should get married I think.

              1. You know what would be an "abjectly stupid argument"???

                Yes. You made it. I pointed it out. Then you made an even more stupid one that had nothing to do with abortion. And now you're defending it, pretending like I, people, shouldn't regard any argument you make, abortion or otherwise, as abjectly stupid. The further you go, the more abjectly stupid your argument becomes.

    2. I'd also ask if the ban is so easy to bypass...why such gnashing of teeth over it?

      1. So, TDS, is/was a just a manifestation of a more core defect. Imagine a mental defect that caused you to be unable to see anything except intentions. So, when you took action, you would only see your intentions motivating those actions and be blind to any and all consequences. Moreover, when someone else took action, even if they explicitly stated "Our goal isn't to prevent all abortions. Just those that take place after 6 weeks.", you wouldn't see the facts that their actions produced the exact outcome they desired, both directly in terms of reducing abortions overall and indirectly as increasing the number of abortions before 6 weeks. You'd just see their intentions.

        I assume, to survive in such a framwork, you would either have to shake off your mental defect and gain a new perspective where your own intentions aren't everything, maintain your delusion by crafting reality around your own intentions, or shoot yourself because you are your intentions, intentions are everything, and your intentions don't matter.

        Reason's positions on SB 8 and "Don't say gay" are how the defect is expressed in the absence of Trump.

      2. That was asked about 18A prohibitionism. Then God's Own Prohibitionists added the Increased Penalties Act to modify the 12,400-word Volstead Act. This was in 1929. Remember the Crash? Banking panics? Great Depression? Hoovervilles? The LP will have to demand repeal of ALL birth-control laws if we are to ever attract women voters the way we did in the beginning.

  2. There is no abortion ban on Texas. And there are no 'workarounds'.

    There is some risk for certain types of abortion providers so people switched to other means. That is it.

    Abortion is still legal in Texas, certain things around it might not be.

    1. SB8 is ENB's, and now Sullum's "Don't Say Abortion." law.

      Dear Reason,

      Fuck your hobby horses.


    2. Stay tuned for Agog Mammon to explain how there is no prohibition in Texas, either. Those prisons full of messkins, blacks and hippies are mere work-arounds where "freedom" is the power to initiate fanatical force. Go Babbitt!

  3. Thousands of children's lives have been saved by the Texas abortion law. Frankly, it doesn't go far enough. Abortion should be completely illegal. Everywhere.

    Anyway, I can't wait for Sullen Jacob's piece on how anti-murder laws don't completely prevent murder.

    1. He’s just awful.

    2. Reconstruction Comstock laws were even better. Before 1973 mail-order rubbers and pregnancy cures stopped quadrillions of wriggling tails. Women burdened with impotent mystics achieved partial satisfaction from Firestone™ rubber dildos. Thanks to the Book-Burning Society the Government Monopoly put an end to those massacres and is bringing back The Dark Ages and Inquisition.

    3. Furniture Polish Remover here is a shining example of how The Klan managed to assemble tens of thousands of Masked KKKhristians at the Dallas fairgrounds during the heady days of Klanbakes and eugenic lynchings.

    4. No children's lives have been saved by Texas' Hiring Intolerant Theocrats to Limit Everyone's Rights (HITLER) law. Because a child is what a human is called after it is born. Before that it is a fetus.

      1. A fetus is still a human you science denying moron.

        1. Nope. Never once in the history of science has that been proved. Fringe theocrats like to say that, but it is in no way, shape, or form an established scientific fact.

          The largest problem you have is that reasonable, moderate, honest moral beliefs held by most Americans reject your fringe position. The only way you can prevent people from acting on their own sincerely held moral beliefs is to use the power of the state to force them.

          1. Can I own slaves, if I deem them to be not human? My daughter was delivered 9 weeks premature, to save her life and my wife's. Tell me how she was not human.

            1. No, because when the argument was made that slavery was immoral, it convinced people. Unlike anti-abortion arguments, which haven't changed the beliefs of Americans with 50 years of heavily-funded influence campaigns.

              And since your daughter was capable of surviving without the mother's womb, obviously she is alive. It's not that hard to understand unless you refuse to.

              If the mother is removed, can the fetus survive? If so, life. If not, no life. Even mouth-breathers can follow it.

              If your situation had happened at 15 weeks instead, totally different story. You wouldn't have a live daughter like you do today. Because she never would have reached the minimum threshold for life.

  4. Killing an animal to eat its meat stops a beating heart! Meat-eating should be illegal everywhere! Also, all carnivores in the wilds should be caught, imprisoned, and forced to settle for a vegan diet!

    1. There you go! Emerson couldn't have improved that consistency.

      1. OK, I got it now!

        "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds." Ralph Waldo Emerson.



        Somebody cribbed from somebody here! Can I say it too, and become famous for it, as well!?!?!

      2. Please allow me to re-state this thought, while fencing out the hobgoblins!

        "Look before you leap." Often very wise, yes.

        "He who hesitates, is lost." Often true, yes.

        One rule for ALL situations, always? Ha! Only for simpletons and fools!

    2. Meat is Murder. The Smiths said so in the 80s.

  5. Hey look everyone.... I'm "inside" a woman against her own will. Freak-en love that the new narrative is as long as I'm breathing she can't do a d*mn thing about it....... Free women for everyone!!!

    This is nothing but virtue signalling. Did all you psychotic protestants toting gov-guns around catch that... 80% of abortions are at 9-weeks or less. The current Supreme Court ruling ensures individual rights till 21-weeks. BECAUSE -------- Well, because of the most OBVIOUS freaken reason in the world. If you can't make it 'seperate' it is NOT an individual. Huh; almost like common-sense or something.

    1. So listen up... I "believe" in unicorns. Ya know horses who can fly.

      It doesn't even phase me that sticking my virtual horn on a horse can't make it fly or that ALL the medical facilities in the world can't make it fly...

      My horse is a unicorn so I expect it's value to be on-par with all unicorns (i.e. "priceless")... And just because your horse can't fly; it's my job to ensure by gov-gun point that all horses are treated priceless because mine is.... /s

    2. As long as we keep true to that line of logic, and don't just apply it to abortion, go for it. If you require my support to live, then it's not murder if I kill you. Hell this would solve most malpractice lawsuits. The second your on lifesupport, I can run a scalpel across your throat, and it doesn't matter because you are no longer an independent human being with rights. Therefore no liability needed.

      1. Yep; and that's how it's been done for decades... The call to unplug for those on life support lies within the family, or the power company to supply that power or the existence of lie support equipment itself... Oh whoops your B.S. just crumbled upon itself.

        And humorously; The Supreme Court deadline isn't even for those who COULD survive on life-support it's 100% UN-savable already dead items. As a matter of fact that's where the 21-weeks originated; Not even 1% there is a savable being there.

      2. Conservatives still see Christian National Socialism as the answer to all ills, and altruistic nazi methods as Consecrated by Christ and James Larratt Battersby. We clearly need more of them rewriting LP platform planks to stop us from repealing girl-bullying bounties like we did in 1972 and 1976.

    3. It's unique DNA establish it as an individual.

      1. https://www.cdc.gov/parasites/cysticercosis/index.html#:~:text=Parasites%20%2D%20Cysticercosis,-Espa%C3%B1ol%20(Spanish)&text=Cysticercosis%20is%20a%20parasitic%20tissue,in%20most%20low%2Dincome%20countries.

        "Cysticercosis is a parasitic tissue infection caused by larval cysts of the tapeworm Taenia solium. These larval cysts infect brain, ...."

        Taenia solium tapeworms (individuals) in your brain have unique DNA as well. I STILL insist that it would be wise to KILL your tapeworms!!! Maybe then you could THINK instead of spouting infected-mind, authoritarian bullshit and tapeworm-shit!

      2. Every dictionary in the world disagrees with you.

        But hey; pull out those gov-guns and make sure everyone if FORCED to inherit !your! definition. Start a propaganda campaign... If it works for leftards why not Anti-Choice?? Re-define those words.

    4. "Hey look everyone.... I'm "inside" a woman against her own will. Freak-en love that the new narrative is as long as I'm breathing she can't do a d*mn thing about it....... Free women for everyone!!!"

      Are you seriously trying to argue that the woman is victimized ... by the baby? And here I was thinking that there was no way you could top your last stupid ass post, but here you are. In addition to exceptions for life of the mother, incest, and rape, I would also make an exception for any woman that you may get pregnant because of the extreme importance of preventing further degenerate mongoloids from entering the gene pool.

      1. Excellent response... So Pro-Life is only Pro-Life as long as the offspring comes out being Pro-Life..... Let that fascism shine.

  6. Yes, bans on one human killing another are harder to enforce than they are to pass. Same thing with other laws banning NAP violations. That is not an argument against making killing or robbing people illegal.

    1. Apparently it is to the brilliant leftist minds at Reason. There are so many people that need killing so now it's fine as long as we call it a very late term abortion.

      1. See the abortion pill(s). They'll even pretend an early term abortion method that the law rather deliberately doesn't ban is a late term method so that they can claim to be flouting the law in order to kill people. Civil "KIlling people at all costs." Libertarianism.

    2. But the fact that a fetus isn't a person/child/human is a fantastuc argument for not making abortion illegal.

      Reasonable people can see that anti-abortionists fail to establish their first principle (life begins at conception) as anything other than religious mysticism. They use science words and tortured logic to try to make it seem reasonable, but the fact that they haven't moved the needle in the 50 years that they have been pouring billions into the effort shows that it is a fringe belief.

      Actual moral outrages like slavery and Jim Crow saw opposition grow because as people thought about it, they realized it was wrong. As people think about abortion, they realize that it isn't wrong and that belief hasn't changed over time.

      1. The "mysticism", as you call it, is that a human being, any human being, has a right to not be killed. If you reject that as a basic premise, then you have thrown out a presumption that human rights exist. If you do not reject that, then it is incumbent on you to explain how a class of individual humans do not have rights (the idea that an unborn child is not human is a ridiculous and unscientific notion). Your position is an irrational, utilitarian excuse making rationalization.

        1. Except a fertilized egg isn't a human being. One day, if everything goes right, there is a possibility that it will become a human being. But pretending that the future equals the present is mysticism.

          I fully support human rights. But first you need a human. And between conception and birth you don't have the necessary elements for a human.

          Like I said, your first premise (life begins at conception) has not only never been established to be true, most people reject it. Because when they ask themselves, "Is a fertilized egg a human?", over 80% of people answer "No.".

          If you wish to believe in ghosts or aliens or Bigfoot or God (whichever version you choose) or life beginning at conception, knock yourself out. Use it to guide your life and inform your personal decisions. But that's as far as it goes. Don't force your bullshit on anyone else.

          My position is mainstream, logical, libertarian, and backed by science. Yours is a superstituous jumble of bias, self-righteousness, extremism, false equivalence, and religious coercion. You are entitled to your opinion, just like the rest of us. But you are not entitled to shove your fringe beliefs down our throats.

          1. A human life is continuum from conception to death. There is no point after conception where personhood is magically bestowed. If a human is a rights bearing entity, then one has rights from the beginning of life until its end. Your view may be mainstream, but many mainstream views are unprincipled, especially this one, and presumes some irrationally determined point where a living thing suddenly becomes a person, and your position cannot come up with an explanation of what the qualities of this transformation are.

            1. Yes, that's your belief. We all get it. The problem is it isn't the accepted definition anywhere outside of the anti-abortion fringe.

              Since personhood is a legal concept, there absolutely is a magical point at which personhood is bestowed. There needs to be some logic behind it, which anti-abortionists are sorely lacking, but you are 100% wrong about personhood.

              Yes, from the beginning of life. Life begins when there is a capability of self-sustaining biological survival. Before that there is 0% of lofe (as reasonable.people understand it) if the mother were to die. And yes. I'm using that awkward phrasing so you don't veer into the "a baby isn't independent" trope that is probably the crowning stupid thing anti-abortionists say. And there's a LOT of competition.

              Look, by mainstream I mean logical, moral, and moderate. The only way that your 15% club (literally) is right and everyone else is wrong is if everyone who disagrees with you is incapable of moral reasoning.

              Since people are capable of moral reasoning, and the fact your propaganda and demonization efforts have completely failed to change anyone's mind in the last 50 years, it's pretty clear that you are wrong.

              Absolutely, completely, 100% wrong.

              And we have a definition of when life begins (live birth) and when the earliest point that could be logically defended as life begins (when independent existance can be self-sustained). It's a definition that most people believe is morally relevant.

              Personhood is a legal concept, not a biological one. But keep with your constant muddling of moral, legal, and biological elements. Confusionnis important when you are arguing for an illogical and roundly rejected position.

              The fact that you don't like what most people believe about life is irrelevant. You can't prove your position. You can't even convince people that your side is right.

              You can say things like "some irrationally determined point where a living thing suddenly becomes a person, and your position cannot come up with an explanation of what the qualities of this transformation are.", but they are so transparently false you lose all credibility. Personhood is a legal question, life is a moral question. It's not that hard to understand.

              And life begins when an organism doesn't require anyone else for their moment-to-moment existence. Not whether they need food, clothing, and housimg from someone else. Not whether they can take care of themselves. Not any of that artificial and intellectually dishonest "gotcha" bullshit your side peddles.

              I'll make it simple for your small mind: if the mother does, can the fetus survive. If so, congratulations! You have life. If not, you do not.

              And the necessary brain activity doesn't occur until 20-24 weeks.

              So please take your rejection of anyone else's ability to reason morally, your self-righteousness, your dishonesty, and your tortured logic and shove it up your ass.

              1. God you are so fucking stupid it hurts. It's difficult to even know where to start.

                Firstly, you clearly know fuck all about the law. Your primary contention is that "personhood is a legal concept". Not only is the question of when life begins completely irrelevant under current Supreme Court doctrine, the Court explicitly declined to define when life begins in Roe v. Wade.

                The issue in that case was decided on grounds of 14th Amendment Due Process. Under the 14th Amendment, a "fundamental right" may only be infringed by the State for a "compelling government interest". The Court explicitly acknowledged that the right of a woman to get an abortion was included in the "fundamental right to privacy". However, they also concluded that this right was not absolute, that the State had a legitimate interest in preserving the "potentiality of life" beginning at conception, and that this right became more compelling as the pregnancy progressed. Accordingly, the court ultimately held that the government's interest in protecting the potentiality of life was compelling at the point of "viability", after which states could ban abortion outright if they so chose.

                The legally dispositive issue was thus whether the abortion occurred before or after viability, which the court defined as when the baby is "POTENTIALLY able to live outside the mother's womb, ALBEIT WITH ARTIFICIAL AID". This language is important because the point of viability when the case was decided was about 28 weeks. As of 2020, babies have survived outside of their mother's womb at 21 weeks. As modern medicine advances, the point of viability will get shorter and shorter, allowing states to ban abortion earlier and earlier.

                In conclusion, your argument is so shitty that you had to completely make shit up to get your point across. The only person that is being intellectually dishonest here is you, and my guess is that you will find some other nonsensical argument to justify your beliefs as soon as this definition no longer comports with your entirely subjective sense of morality.

                (life begins at birth; life begins when the fetus can survive even if the mother dies; life begins when an organism doesn't require anyone else for their moment-to-moment existence")

                Moreover, there is nothing intellectually dishonest about countering

                1. "Firstly, you clearly know fuck all about the law."

                  And I never claimed to. AlI said was personhood was a legal concept. Which isn't wrong.

                  "POTENTIALLY able to live outside the mother's womb, ALBEIT WITH ARTIFICIAL AID".

                  OK. That's fine, we're still at 20 or 21 weeks, not 15 weeks or 6 weeks, or zero weeks, which is where various levels of fanatics are trying to go.

                  "As modern medicine advances, the point of viability will get shorter and shorter, allowing states to ban abortion earlier and earlier."

                  So much like the distorted definition of life, which treats something that will occur in the future as if it is in the present, you are saying the dame thing about medicine. We aren't there yet and we won't be in my lifetime. Or my nephew's. Or his kids, most likely. So stop trying to pretend your vision of the future should inform the present. When we get there, then and only then is yiur argument valid.

                  "your argument is so shitty that you had to completely make shit up to get your point across."

                  You're projecting. My beliefs are smack dab in the middle of America in the 2020s. And the 2010s. And the 2000s. Basically, all the way back to the 70s when you zealots started trying to force everyone to live by your fringe beliefs.

                  "your entirely subjective sense of morality."

                  Yes, just like everyone else's. If you think there is some absolute moral.code that is right and everyone else is wrong, yiu're kidding yourself. There are a small number of universal building blocks. Everyrhing else is subjective. There is a big difference between subjective and fluid (or changable or whatever word you want). Having a strong moral code and set of moral beliefs is pretty common and they don't all match up. Why would you be so arrogant as to assume that you have the magic formula and everyone else is wrong?

                  "life begins at birth;"

                  I'm sure you can find one or two wingnuts who don't believe live birth is life, but that is about as uncontroversial a statement as a person could make. If you want to dispute that live birth is life, have at it.

                  "life begins when the fetus can survive even if the mother dies; life begins when an organism doesn't require anyone else for their moment-to-moment existence")"

                  That's the same thing twice, and both are true. It is illogical and incorrect to say that life exists if the organism is incapable of existing.

                  If, were the mother to die, the fetus has a 0% chance to survive, it isn't alive. It isn't a separate organism. It isn't viable. It isn't capable of inerpendent existence. I'm sure I could find a bunch of other whys to say what we bkth know I mean and you would find some dishonest way to avoid the central point. If it can't exist withiut the mother's body, it isn't life.

                  Bottom line? The earliest you can call a fetus alive is when it has the ability to survive the death of the mother. Before that it is pure potential. And even if we get to a place in medicine where we can push that 20-21 week "record" back, there just isn't much room left.

                  We are decades, if not centuries, away from being able to create an environment where a fetus can continue to develop of removed from the mother's body before viability. If we get there in our lifetimes you can say "I told you so". Until then, stop pushing your fantasies on the 85% if Americans who knkw that life doeab't begin at conception.

            2. "Your view may be mainstream, but many mainstream views are unprincipled, especially this one"

              I would argue that many, if not most, progressive positions are unprincipled. In my experience, I have found that many conservatives and libertarians begin with first principles and reason from there. Modern progressives do the reverse. On any particular issue, they locate the concerned party with the greatest intersectional bonafides and choose whichever principle they believe is most convenient to advance the interests of the marginalized group. If you evaluate progressive policies as a whole as opposed to singular issues in a vacuum, it becomes very obvious that there is no foundational ideology underpinning any of their their beliefs, which often results in obvious contradictions to anyone with a brain. Only an absolute dumb ass would believe that you could abolish the police and enforce firearm bans at the same time, that a large welfare state could possibly be sustainable with open borders, or that a 3rd grade boy should be allowed to take hormone therapy or surgical castration but also that gender is entirely subjective and someone with a penis is just as much of a girl as a person without one.

              1. I agree with you. The progressives are just as unprincipled as the far right. Neither follows a coherent ideology because they both just react.

                The center-left and center-right, along with the vanishingly rare pure moderate, is where you have to look for principle. Wingnuts like Cruz, Sanders, AOC, Jim Jordan, Ron Johnson, etc. are willing to sell out their principles to get a win. Or, for some like Bernie, their principles are so far away from the philosophical center of American beliefs that they are good to being issues into the discussion, but they shouldn't ever have any actual power.

                1. I always considered the USA Patriots in the scheme of things labelled by the media as far-right.. And the so called moderate-right was all the RINO (principle-less ones) who pitch soft-core socialism which don't vary at all with the 1/2 dozen moderate Democrats left the rest being full on Nazi's.

                  1. Patriotism is a funny thing. It means "love of and devotion to one's country". But to the right wing if you don't love and aren't devoted to America in the "right way", with the "right beliefs", then you aren't a patriot.

                    There are patriots across the political spectrum. And if yiu don't think that's possible, you aren't any kind of patriot.

                    The whe RINO thing is a perfect example. If you aren't the "right" kind of Republican, you aren't a "real" Republican. And right now being a "real" Republican means selling out any principle for power (Mitch, McCarthy, Jordan, Cruz, Graham, etc.) instead of remaining true to principles even if it puts you in opposition to others in your party (Romney, Collins, Murkowski, Cheney, Kinzinger, etc.).

                    1. And those "principles" would be?????
                      The U.S. Constitution...

                      Oddly; I don't see Romney as the champion of Constitutional principles but would put Cruz a lot higher on that principled list.

                    2. Thinking Ted Cruz is principled is funny. He's not as bad as Lindsay Graham, but he's close.

  7. Wait...you mean the practical power of government is...limited?

    Some people here are going to be freaked out.

  8. Wow(.) A Sullum article parroting ENBs stupidity beat for beat. This magazine really is going to shit.

    Again, dumbasses, the abortion pill is not a workaround and saying it is makes you look like daffy duck grabbing Elmer Fudd's shotgun, pointing it at your own face, and shouting "Duck Season! Fire!":

    Mifepristone is approved, in a regimen with misoprostol, to end a pregnancy through 70 days gestation (70 days or less since the first day of a woman’s last menstrual period).

    So, 70 days = 10 weeks. First period ~ 1 week, so 9 weeks. Time between last period and missed period ~ 4 weeks, so 5 weeks. Meaning the exogenously imposed limitations on using the abortion pill, from both the FDA and the Austrian physician, giving a two week window in front of the first missed period is 5-7 weeks.

    Seriously, I'm a married dude and I understand this math. The only reason I can see that you would ignore human physiology, logistics, and the law to describe this as a win is if you were determined to prove Bugs Bunny wrong at all costs.

  9. I am going to take another tack on this one, firstly I knew this would be the outcome and a smart person would have opened some clinics just across the border and invested in mail order pharmacy. This is the exact route pork and chicken producers should take with California…partner with Walmart or Costco or whoever and open giant stores just across the border or if they are not affected by the law on Indian reservations in California. When laws give you lemons make lemonade.

    1. Mystical eugenics designed to increase to Armageddon the supply of the opposite of smart people--the ones easily brainwashed into believing that ghosts mate with Earth Girls to produce water-striding Undead--has alarmed women voters. The real backfire is that women in Coahuila--indeed all of Mexico--now have individual rights like in Ireland, Argentina, and Colombia just lately. This increases to 65 the number of countries in which women have rights. Conservatives not public charges can still move to Saudi Arabia.

  10. Mencken's "The Perihelion of Prohibition", 1922, tells a similar story of ignorant bigot legislation handing $40 million a year to bootlegging cops and agents as seed money. Half of all housewives bought corn sugar, yeast and canned malt to make agreeable beer behind the Fourth Amendment. Prohibition surprised Americans, whose talent for corruption promptly nullified it, ending the sudden depression. The Invisible Empire struck back in 1929, and soon bankruptcies, poverty and Hoovervilles were everywhere.

  11. Taking pills to induce a miscarriage early in a pregnancy is not the same as late term surgical abortion, or the killing of a baby. Of course, if you believe that life begins at conception, which most pro-lifers do, then it is. It’s a lot like how progs can’t distinguish between vaping and smoking, or hunting rifles and machine guns because it’s what it represents that they abhor.

    1. Sullum actually contradicted his argument in the opening statement:

      But the actual decline in abortions was much smaller, because many women traveled to clinics in other states or used readily available drugs to end their pregnancies at home.

      Those workarounds, recent research suggests, drastically limited the law's impact.

      Sullum seems to be implying here that the point of the law was to reduce abortions overall. That's the wrong way to look at it.

      The point of the law was to reduce abortions in Texas--which the law has empirically done so far, and quite dramatically. The law's opponents have even admitted that the it's resulted in an overall drop in abortions, as well. That the ones who've kept getting abortions are going out of state or ordering abortion pills to get it taken care of is rather missing the point. That's why Democrats in states like New Mexico and Colorado are calling for those places to go the New York route, or the Virginia bill that was ultimately killed, by passing laws that allow abortion all the way up until the baby has fully emerged from the birth canal.

      1. The law has sure as Hell lowered the average i.q. in Texas. As women and the literati move out, look for a spike in anthrax transmitted via... er... animal husbandry among the shitkickers.

        1. Take your meds, bigot.

      2. It may have reduced abortion procedures in Texas, but it’s not counting Texas women who are taking pills to end pregnancies. Unless they are driving to another state to take them.

    2. Rep. Ram Johnston has proven conclusively that Life Begins At Erection!

  12. Remember when the people gave the government the authority to dictate everyone's pregnancy? ---- Yeah; me neither.

    I do remember the 13th Amendment though...
    "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

    Not sure how FORCED REPRODUCTION gets dismissed from being "involuntary servitude" for those who want to believe (as in religiously - which should involve GOV-GUNS!) that one person is actually two.

    1. Rape aside, the woman voluntary chose to have sex without birth control.
      Her body, her choice.
      How is defending the baby's life forced reproduction?
      Inquiring minds want to know.

      1. Slut shaming is not a valid argument against abortion.

        Anti-abortionists keep skipping over the most important part:

        First establish that a fertilized egg is a person/human.

        But since that hasn't worked, the fringe now says, "I'm right about an embryo being a human and you must accept that without any moral or scientific logic. And if you reject that or point out that it is a fringe position, you are a baby-killer.".

        And defending a baby's life is heroic. It just has to be an actual baby for it to count. Changing the definition of "baby", "human", "child", and "person" to fit your narrative doesn't change the actual meaning of the words for over 80% of people. Literally over 80%.

        1. "First establish that a fertilized egg is a person/human"

          Completely unnecessary. Even the fucking Supreme Court recognizes that abortion can be legal regardless of whether the fetus could be considered a person. We don't live in fucking Afghanistan. The fact of the matter is that as soon as sperm meets egg, the fertilized egg will become a baby 99.5% of the time. By getting an abortion, a woman is ending a life that would otherwise be virtually inevitable.

          "Slut shaming is not a valid argument against abortion."

          Absolutely fucking rich. It isn't slut shaming to point out that pregnancy is a foreseeable consequence of sex. Every fucking woman on planet earth is aware of these risks and should be expected to face the consequences of their actions. No one forced anyone to do shit.

          1. "The fact of the matter is that as soon as sperm meets egg, the fertilized egg will become a baby 99.5% of the time."

            You're way off. Estimates on fertilized eggs failing to implant or failing to implant on the right llace (ectopic pregnancies) have estimates as high as 50%. Then you have various versions of failure to thrive (like stillbirth). Basically, it is a coin toss (or a weighted coin toss against) that a fertilized egg becomes a living human.

            "By getting an abortion, a woman is ending a life"

            A life has to start in order to be ended. Prove it's a life. Or stop with the bullshit "babykiller", "murderer", "heartbeat (when there isn't even a heart yet)", or any of the other inflammatory and factually deficient accusations zealots toss around.

            "It isn't slut shaming to point out that pregnancy is a foreseeable consequence of sex."

            It isn't a "foraeeable consequence". Considering the effectiveness of contraception, it is a distant possibility. When you start with a base number that is as high as the number of times people have sex, a 1% possibility is a lot of unintended pregnancies.

            Granted it's a bigger chance in areas with ignorance-onky sex education. But apparently it's more important to be self-righteous and morally superior thab to actually educate kids about sex and how to prevent pregnancy. Because kids are going to have sex. It's a biological drive combined with the questionabke decision-making of teenagers. You can't fight biology.

            "Every fucking woman on planet earth is aware of these risks and should be expected to face the consequences of their actions."

            It takes two to tango. And I don't see your moral outrage directed at the men involved. Basically you're a self-righteous windbag who thinks that anyone who chooses to have sex is choosing to have children. Which is first-order stupidity.

            There are a lot of thjngs that sex is "for". Percentage-wise, reproduction isn't even in playoff contention. Pleasure is the winner by a mile and interpersonal intimacy is a strong contender. Just because reproduction is one of the reasons for sex, it isn't the only one.

            Unless you'd like to make the argument thatbthe only time people have sex is when they want to have kids? Because that would get you laughed out of the room, even if that room was in a fundementalist church.

          2. Well; you better do it RIGHT then....

            Pitch the law that makes getting pregnant from the act of sex illegal. Then after throwing all the pregnant women you jail; the 13th Amendment won't be a problem.... What a plan!!!

            While we're at it can the [WE] mob do the same for the act of driving? I mean talk about killing others due to accidents.. I mean what's the point of driving anyways; just convenience?

    2. At this point, I'm starting to think you're trolling. You have yet to provide a single coherent pro-choice argument, let alone a persuasive one.

      Almost every conservative on the planet believes in exceptions for life of the mother, incest, or rape. I, and most other conservatives, have absolutely no issue whatsoever with a woman getting an abortion if she was impregnated during an involuntary sex act. Of course, these are exceedingly rare cases. The vast majority of women who get abortions got pregnant during consensual sex. Pregnancy is completely avoidable, and it's no ones fault but the woman's for not taking the proper precautions.

      Go back to the drawing board and think through your arguments a little more carefully next time. I'm sure if you keep throwing shit against the wall that you'll eventually make a point that isn't utterly retarded.

      1. "You have yet to provide a single coherent pro-choice argument, let alone a persuasive one."

        Not compelling to you. But they are compelling to most people. Because you are in the "rape/incest/life of the mother" category, less than a third of Americans find your moral position convincing. And it's not.like they don't understand it or aren't aware of the issue. They just think you are wrong. Americans, since they started being asked after Roe, have always been pro-choice. The anti-abortion position has never been the dominant moral belief in America. And given how desperate the anti-abortion forces are, they probably realize that it never will be. With falling church attendance, personal choice rising as an important belief in young people, and the coercive nature of strategies in the culture wars. And despite the billions spent trying to get people to accept the anti-abortion belief, kthing has changed in 50 years. Americans still reject pro-life beliefs. And they resoundingly reject the "life begins at conception" anti-abortionists.

        You're fighting a losing battle. And even with a religious zealot like ACB on the Supreme Court, any victory will be short-lived. Because American culture rejects religious coercion.

  13. For a law that's so easy to get around that it should just be abolished, you lefties sure are screeching a LOT.

    But don't worry. Soon none of you will be screeching at all.

    1. Humorously it was an over-whelming right-wing Supreme Court that set the Roe v. Wade precedence.

      But the Power-Mad of the Right just couldn't be happy; so it's MORE, MORE, MORE Power over 'those' people.

  14. "Enforcing Abortion Bans Is Much Harder Than Passing Them"

    Thank God.

  15. dude. ghoulish. and not in the way dead baby jokes are funny.

    1. It depends on your definition of God and what you think he/she/it says.

      1. Sullum cheers abortions in a freaky non-male fashion.

        1. No one "cheers" abortion. It is a painful and difficult decision for a woman to make. And pretending otherwise is the worst kind of strawman (right up there with third-trimester abortions).

          1. Sullum cheers them with his words.

            Creating and protecting life is instinctive. Justifying ending a life is technocratic and requires mental gymnastics.

            1. Forcing a minority moral opinion on everyone else, using the power of the state, is not just anti-libertarian, it is theocratic, coercive, factually deficient, and just plain wrong.

              1. To REALLY understand abortion, you have to have the best ANALOGY! Abortion is like this:

                You’re drunk off of your bleeding ass, driving down the road and shit, minding your own business and shit. Maybe you shouldn’t have dropped that acid, either, but the cops haven’t caught you, and, innocent till proven guilty, right? So you keep on driving… Your drunken ass is bleeding and shit, by the way, ‘cause you’ve got some wicked hemorrhoids, and shit!

                Then some space aliens swoop in on your car, and abduct you, and shit. They start anally probing you. For some strange reason, the little green men have a conscience attack, they start worrying about fucking up your health, and shit, what with your giant bleeding hemorrhoids. So they cease and desist, yank their probes out of your ass, and probe your nose instead, and shit. They don’t even bother to clean the bloody shit off of the probes, and shit!
                But then a mucus vampire circles around you and swoops in like a vulture!

                See, a mucus vampire, well, they’ve got some sort of magical nose for this kind of thing, and somehow he catches on to what’s going down, and he wants to suck your mucus, and shit. So he shows up, to get in on the action.

                But when the mucus vampire sees all your blood and shit mixed up with your mucus and shit, he gets all disgusted and shit. The blood, he can handle… Some of his best friends are blood vampires. He’s a tolerant and broad-minded vampire, and shit, you know. But REAL shit, in his mucus??! Now THAT is TOO MUCH shit, and shit!

                So he says, “Dudes, getting blood and shit into your mucus and shit, that’s like getting chocolate into your peanut butter and jelly and shit! That’s like getting your stupid and your evil all mixed up into your philosophy! This is some seriously fucked up bloody-snot shit! I’m outta here!” And the mucus vampire is SOOO sickened, he barfs all over you! Then he wraps his cloak around him like Batman folding up his bat-wings around himself, turns into a bat-shit crazy bat, and shit, and flies away, all disgusted.
                The little green men, being kinda autistic, take everything literally. They are also HORNY little green men, already excited by anally and nasally probing you, and, upon hearing the mucus vampire talking about “…seriously fucked up bloody-snot shit…”, get all carried away, and shoot their little-green-men jism all over your bloody-snot shit!

                Now if we sit back and think about this, your shit bacteria get all fucked up, ‘cause they were expecting a decent burial in your toilet, and they don’t get one. Your nasal bacteria and viruses were expecting to LIVE, or, at least, a traditional, honorable drying-out session in your booger rag, and they don’t get that, either. Your little green men sperm cells get REALLY screwed over, ‘cause they were expecting at least SOME long odds (but a real fighting chance) at some little green woman’s egg cell. Your red blood cells don’t matter, ‘cause they have no cell nucleus, let alone a nervous system, or any kind of independent life. Your white blood cells? Well, yes, they have a nucleus, and their own genes. But they’re WHITE, dammit! You CRAZY cracker muthafuckers!!! WHITE means you’re a RACIST, and WHO CARES about the rights of racist honkeys?!?!

                Ergo, we must conclude, this whole thing is an abortion all around! Since abortions are, by definition, abortions, they need to be outlawed!

  16. Major big L Libertarian moment in this article. You could have said "enforcing laws is harder than passing them" and nothing would change.

    It's hard to hold people accountable for crimes. Sometimes innocent people are killed during investigations and arrests. We also don't allow people to do immoral things just because enforcement gets ugly. Shocking, I know. Nobody would have known this if I didn't say anything.

  17. Seriously, I’m against the state being involved, and don’t really agree with the Texas law, but fucktards like Nelson, TJJ, and Hank make it really hard to even muster the will to say anything against it.

    No, the fetus is not a parasite. Yes, it is a human at the earliest stages of development. No, it is not trespassing.

    Trying to argue against any of these objective facts makes you a fucking moron.

    1. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And the anti-abortion "life begins at conception" is, at best, morally, scientifically, practically, and logically ambiguous.

      The fact that your "obvious" conclusions about abortion are rejected by most people (and have continuously rejected despite the billions the radical right has spent on their influence campaigns sunce the 1970s) should indicate how out of touch the anti-abortion position is with American.

    2. Wanna hear something funny....

      The Pro-Life [WE] mob likes to pretend a pregnant woman is two different people but when anyone tries to create two different people (i.e. separation) that same [WE] mob goes insane....

      Talk about a Catch-22... Seems the only obtainable thing the Pro-Life [WE] mob is after is the dictation of everyone's pregnancy.

  18. Well, I know this is Reason, but I must point out to Mr. Sullum that he is expected to perform some reasonable level of verification of facts before publishing.

    Texas has never passed an abortion ban.

    1. It created the first State Theocrats Advocating for Limiting Individual Rights (STALIN) law. Saying it isn't a ban is like saying there's a difference between a car that's completely wrecked and one that is totaled. It's a distinction without a difference.

  19. the problem with the abortion debate is that the only ones actively engaging in it are the absolutists... the extremists, if you will.

    on one hand you have the people driven more by religion than reason who cannot accept anything less than complete bans. 6 weeks isn't the goal, it is just a stepping stone that is the farthest they think they might get away with under current law.

    on the other hand, you have those who think you should be able to abort as the baby is being born.

    the reality is that it is a moral question where the line is not only fuzzy, it is very personal. the question basically boils down to when the clump of cells becomes a person who's rights are at least equal to the rights of the woman. even the most hardcore anti-abortion activists tend to carve out exceptions where continued pregnancy would threaten the woman's life..... as absolutist as they act, even they admit on some level that the fetus has the lesser right to life. even most hardcore pro-abortion activists tend to back away from late term abortions..... as absolutist as they are, even they admit on some level that there is a point where the child's right to live is established. (there are, of course, the supper nutty exceptions on both sides.)

    the question is when is it reasonable to treat the clump of cells as an individual. for most people, viability seems like a reasonable line. could you pull it out, stop using the woman as an incubator, and have it still survive. this line isn't easy to define in all cases, and comes with a lot of caveats about lifetime disabilities for those kids..... but that is the ballpark any good faith laws should be looking at. could the baby survive if removed from the mother? 6 weeks is absurdly early, because it isn't designed to be reasonable, it is designed to get as close as possible to a complete ban as possible.

    1. "the problem with the abortion debate is that the only ones actively engaging in it are the absolutists... the extremists, if you will"

      I disagree. I have never and will never argue in favor of a "day before delivery" position on abortion. I am deeply bothered by late-term abortion. But since that only accounts for 1% of all abortions, I have no problem arguing against anti-abortionists.

      Ultimately I believe that people, in general, are capable of moral reasoning. So when I look at a tiny portion of people trying to act like others can't form moral beliefs and demanding the state force the overwhelming majority to subsume their moral beliefs, I know who's right and who's wrong.

      Anti-abortionists are wrong. Period. Full stop.

      That doesn't make the "we should be able to abort up to the second before live birth" crowd right. That's how it is framed by anti-abortionists, but it's not the case. That's a strawman. Anyone who mentions Kermit Gosnell is the worst version of it.

      Many people who are pro-choice wouldn't get or encourage someone else to get an abortion. Personally, I would want any pregnancy I caused to go to term. I wouldn't suggest (and would probably argue against) an abortion. But I'm not so arrogant to believe that I should be allowed to force anyone else to live that way. Because it isn't a moral opposition to abortion that would make me act that way. And if my partner was determined to get an abortion, I would support her. Because it isn't just my call. And, again, there isn't a convincing moral argument against pre-viability abortion.

      Roughly 15% of Americans believe that life begins at conception and abortion should be outlawed. About 9% of Americans believe that abortion is OK all the way up to live birth.

      The remaining 76% fall in between. Many of them make their voice heard on both sides. On the anti-abortion side, add a rape-and-incest exception and your cohort grows to the low 30s. Move the ban to the beginning of the 2nd trimester and you get to the low 40s. On the pro-choice side, accept a ban on third trimester abortions and you get a little over 50%. Move it to the earliest a live birth has ever survived (I believe it's 20 or 21 weeks) and you end up in the 60s.

      That's where most of us live. We don't like unrestrained abortion but we hate a complete ban. The reason that the anti-abortion folks need to use legal and governmental force is that they want to require people substitute the extreme moral beliefs for whatever people believe for themselves.

      The pro-choice side is largely laissez-faire about abortion, with a limiting requirement near the ceiling. Anti-abortionists want to make the limit and the floor indistinguishable.

      The problem with freedom is that peiple will keep doing things you don't like. That's a good thing. If you say, "I don't like what they're doing", awesome. PDA, freaky haircuts, gis wearing boy clothes (or vice versa), whatever your pet peeve is, judge away. But if you say, "I want to stop them from doing what they're doing" you'd better have an ironclad reason. And anti-abortionists don't even have a better-than-50% reason, let alone one that would require people to subordinate their own moral reasoning to a stranger's.

      The moderates are speaking all the time. It's just the extremists who try to make it into an us-or-them battle.

      If there is an us-or-them, the massive "us" are the 76% in the middle and the tiny "them" are the 15%-plus-9% on the fringes.

      1. Nelson, thanks for your well-considered remarks!

        Here are some of mine:

        http://www.churchofsqrls.com/sonograms/ (humorous) and
        PS, for those who might care for a supposedly thoughtful discussion of abortion, go see http://www.churchofsqrls.com/Abortions/

        Also this:

        I have the right to go out and get a job, earn some money, and use this money to buy some guns and ammo. Then when your generic thug or hitperson comes by to kill me, I can shoot him or her (do NOT be sexist here!) to disable or kill, in self-defense.

        Similarly, the involved blastocyst or embroyo at hand here had the right to go earn some money and become empowered to practice self-defense. But no, the blastocycst here (generically in these cases) was a deadbeat, and wouldn't even get off of his or her blobby, blastocysty butt to get a haircut to look decent for a job interview, even, let alone actually GOING to a job interview! Deadbeats get very-very little sympathy from me...

        Meanwhile, ready access to abortion is being hindered by state laws involving near-endless Government-Almighty-mandated rituals, such as the pre-abortion ladies having to get ceremonialy raped by the “shaming wand”.

        "Women giving birth by natural processes to which they gave consent is not "compulsion". You might even look at it like a judge enforcing a contract." (Said one poster on these pages).

        For many-many women (excluding hookers) there is an implied contract that the man that they have sex with, will honor her by being reasonably faithful, loving, kind, considerate…

        "Love ya, Babe, Love-ya-Love-ya, LOVE ya. NOW can I get in yer pants?"

        Dude get in her pants... Gets her pregnant. As soon as she is pregnant, the abuse begins! And THEN she finds out that he has 5 other girlfriends! Abortion is "veto power" against scumbucket men, is what it is. I for one do not want to take the side of scumbucket men, against women, in this case, when it means that that many more genes and social influences of scumbucket men will be passed on, against the wishes of women who "learned better", but too late... And yes, some women practice “entrapment” on the other side, as well; the abuse is a 2-way street…

        Anyway, w/regards to the sexes abusing each other, I have “been to the mountain top” to see the Guru in the cave, and have learned MUCH wisdom, which I will now pass on to you… Hooray!

        Q: What is the difference between a woman who just can NOT find a man who treats her well, and so, she is constantly shuttling between abusive men? And a man who abuses women, by, for example yanking on the gazongas too hard?

        A: The first is a “jerks juggler”, and the second is a “jugs jerker”!

        Can you say,
        “Jerks-jugglers juggle jugs-jerking jerks”?

        One (in a free nation) can FLEE the harem, after the deception becomes apparent, AND get an abortion! Many-many men do NOT want to pick up a ready-made family; they want to start their own, with their own genes! It is deeply buried into our biology, this is... Otherwise, the scumbucket men will pass on their genes, and the decent men will raise all of the babies... Not their own genetic babies. So, to whatever basis human behavior is genetically based, the scumbucket genes will prevail, and the good-responsible-fathering-genes will go extinct. We will become like horses and elephant seals and others, capable of fighting all day to gather our harems and father offspring, but no longer able to be responsible fathers. This is what is at stake, here...
        Post-abortion fled-the-harem deceived woman is now free to find a better father, free of the ready-made family, that many-many men (for good reason) do not want. It is that simple.

        They are not yet “children”, they are variously fertilized egg cells, blastocysts, zygotes, embryos, fetuses…

        To get one’s panties in a wad over the “rights” of the earliest stages is just like the below analogy…

        Yes, technically, killing a fartilized human egg smell is “killing a human life”… Maybe ditto for killing eggs and sperms!
        Well, technically, you pilfering a god-damned ACORN off of my property, is theft, just like cutting down a mature oak, in the middle of the night, for thousands, even tens of thousands, of dollars’ worth of oak wood! Yes, these kinds of thefts are very real, for owners of mature hardwood trees!

        Are we going to punish the theft of an acorn, the same as the theft of a mature tree? And punish the murder of a born baby or adult, the same as snuffing an unwanted blastocyst? WHERE has good judgment gone!?!?!

  20. So under Texas law can I sue the US Postal Service or whoever for delivering the abortion meds? I could use an extra $10k every few days.

    1. Give it a shot. It was designed as legalized vigilantism against a legal procedure, so why not crank the absurdity up to 11?

  21. invested in mail order pharmacy
    under Texas law can I sue the US Postal Service or whoever for delivering the abortion meds

    God Fucking dammit! The 'pharmaceutical option' effectively enforced the law before it was passed. Sweet Fucking Christ it's as if the bill had been written "4 weeks before ten weeks after conception" you dumb fucks would've said "OK".

    Oh my God maybe we do need to send some Americans to fight in the Ukraine.

    1. Oh my Government Almighty maybe we do need to send some womb micro-managers to fight in the North Korea! Kim Ill Dung-Breath the 17th needs some more boy-toys to play with, like a fat over-fed & otherwise-spoiled-&-soiled house-cat needs mice to play with! (Kim Ill Dung-Face likes to shoot people with anti-aircraft artillery, ya know.)

      Obedience to the Collective Hive Leader Uber Alles!!! All is for the micro-managed Hive! All Hail!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.