The stories you want. The opinions that matter.
No, thanks
Tag: abortions
Walker Fits Pattern Of Anti-Choice Republicans Who Allegedly Paid For Abortions

Walker Fits Pattern Of Anti-Choice Republicans Who Allegedly Paid For Abortions

The Daily Beast reported on Monday that in 2009, Georgia Republican Senate nominee Herschel Walker allegedly paid for a woman he got pregnant to have an abortion.

Walker has denied the Beast's reporting, calling the story a "flat-out lie" and a "repugnant hatchet job" and threatening to sue the news outlet for defamation.

During his Senate campaign, Walker has alluded to the idea that abortion should be banned in all circumstances, including when the life of the pregnant person is at risk.

"There's no exception in my mind," Walker told reporters in May. "Like I say, I believe in life. I believe in life."

The Beast’s story is an “October Surprise” for the Georgia Senate race, which finds Democrats fighting to hold on to the seat that Sen. Raphael Warnock won in a special election in January 2021.

Walker isn't the first Republican whose public stance on abortion rights has conflicted with his alleged private actions.

Two other Republicans running in November have been accused of either paying for or encouraging women in their lives to have abortions despite claiming to oppose the procedure.

Rep. Scott DesJarlais (R-TN) allegedly encouraged both his wife and his lover to get abortions. DesJarlais has said he is "100% pro-life."

In the final days of the 2012 election, a transcript of an undated phone conversation between DesJarlais and his ex-wife before their divorce was finalized in 2001 became public.

"You told me you'd have an abortion, and now we're getting too far along without one," DesJarlais allegedly told his wife. "If we need to go to Atlanta, or whatever, to get this solved and get it over with so we can get on with our lives, then let's do it."

DesJarlais won reelection in 2012 against a Democrat in his heavily Republican district. In 2014, he faced a primary challenge from a Republican state legislator and eked out a win by just 38 votes. DesJarlais has comfortably won reelection since then.

Then there's Mike Erickson, the Republican nominee in Oregon's newly created Sixth Congressional District.

In the early 2000s, Erickson allegedly drove his girlfriend to a doctor's office and paid $300 for her to get an abortion.

The revelation first came to light in 2008, when Erickson ran a failed campaign for Congress on a "pro-life" platform. He's now running for Congress again against a pro-abortion rights Democrat in a race rated a "tilt Democratic" contest by Inside Elections.

A fourth self-described "pro-life" Republican ended up resigning from Congress in 2017 after reports surfaced that he had encouraged a woman with whom he had had an affair to get an abortion.

Rep. Tim Murphy of Pennsylvania resigned after a text message from the woman leaked. She told Murphy that he had "zero issue posting your pro-life stance all over the place when you had no issue asking me to abort our unborn child just last week when we thought that was one of the options."

Murphy allegedly encouraged the woman to have an abortion, despite being a member of the House "Pro-Life Caucus" and despite having voted for a national abortion ban.

Abortion is a major issue in the 2022 midterm elections. This summer, the Supreme Court overturned its landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, which had affirmed the constitutional right to an abortion before fetal viability, around 24 weeks gestation.

Polling shows that most Americans disagree with the court's decision and think abortion should be legal in all or most cases.

Democrats have been hammering GOP candidates on the airwaves for their opposition to abortion.

In Georgia, a Quinnipiac poll found that abortion rights are at the top of voters' minds. That same poll found Warnock leading Walker 52 percent to 46 percent.

A poll published Tuesday by NARAL Pro-Choice America found that 62 percent of Georgia voters oppose the overturning of Roe.

Inside Elections rates the Georgia Senate race a "toss-up" contest.

Reprinted with permission from American Independent.

GOP Ideology Impedes Medical Progress

What About Embryos? GOP Ideology Endangers Health And Science

Such is the state of the Republican Party that only eight of its 210 House members voted yes on a bill to protect the right to contraceptives. We're talking birth control.

Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Republican of Washington, denounced the bill as a "Trojan Horse for more abortions."

Start with the obvious. Contraceptives prevent the unwanted pregnancies that lead to abortions. Also, the number of abortions in this country has steadily declined over the last 40 years, the reason being increased contraceptive use.

Other Republicans complained that Democrats pushed the birth control protection bill just for show. After all, no state currently bans contraceptives. One might agree, except that Justice Clarence Thomas just wrote that the thinking behind the Supreme Court's overturning of Roe v. Wade could apply to contraceptives as well.

Some have opposed Roe on the grounds that Congress, not the courts, should have enshrined any national right to abortion. Well, that's the approach just taken by the Democrat-controlled House concerning contraceptives. It passed a law guaranteeing a right to birth control.


Since Republicans are going down that path, one must ask, "What about embryos?" As a law professor, Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett signed a statement that life began at fertilization. An embryo is a fertilized egg.

Fertility clinics discard thousands upon thousands of abandoned embryos every year. That's because a single round of in vitro fertilization treatment typically involves collecting 10 or more eggs with only one or two being implanted in the mother. Many countries actually require that these surplus embryos be destroyed after a certain period.

Shouldn't states declaring embryos to be people require the clinics to preserve all unused embryos or close down? The cost of storing frozen embryos can exceed $1,000 a year.

In the opinion overturning Roe, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that abortion destroys "potential life" and the life of an "unborn human being." Foes of contraception make the same argument, that sperm and eggs are potential life, even before they meet.

Then there is embryonic stem cell research, which holds great promise for defeating such medical scourges as Alzheimer's and heart disease. The procedures require destroying embryos (many of them donated by IVF patients who didn't need them).

Thanks to a new embryonic stem cell-derived therapy, a man ravaged by formerly incurable Type 1 diabetes seems to have been cured of this terrible condition. The overjoyed 57-year-old patient, Brian Shelton of Ohio, exclaimed: "This is a whole new life. It's like a miracle."

One of the developers was Dr. Doug Melton. In 2001, Melton had to cut his lab's ties to Harvard University after President George W. Bush barred federal funding for research involving the destruction of embryos. Fortunately for humankind, private money was found to help Melton establish a separate lab.

By the way, Bush never did anything about the IVF clinics that were discarding unused embryos. But in 2005, he put on a bizarre show at one of them where he said, "There is no such thing as a spare embryo." He noted that 81 embryos had already been "adopted" under a special program run by a pro-life group.

Well, that left only about 399,982 unused embryos then stored at IVF clinics — embryos that could have helped lead to cures for deadly diseases. We can only wonder how many lives might have been saved had medical research not been hobbled over two decades by an obsession over embryos that were getting thrown out anyway.

As the midterms approach, voters might ask themselves whether they want to empower a Republican Party that thinks like this — that couldn't get even one out of 27 members to support something as basic as birth control.

Reprinted with permission from Creators.

New Poll Shows Supreme Court Credibility Crashing Among Women

Poll: Supreme Court Approval Crashing Among Women And Young Voters

Multiple polls have now found Americans’ opinion of the Supreme Court plummeting in the wake of recent decisions expanding gun rights and overturning Roe v. Wade.

One of those polls was a survey conducted by the progressive consortium Navigator Research, which found the high court's net favorability plunging 26 points since February to 44% favorable, 47% unfavorable.

The net changes Navigator noted between February and late June among specific demographics are fascinating.

Here's how the net change in favorability among demographics rank from the largest drops to the smaller ones. (Note: Some demographics aren't mentioned at all.)

  • Liberal Democrats: -57
  • 2020 Biden voters: -52
  • College women: -44
  • White-collar: -40
  • Suburban: -39
  • Service industry: -34
  • Women: -32
  • Independent women: -30
  • Ages 18-34: -30

As Navigator notes, the groups that have moved most against the court are younger, female, suburban, liberal Democrats, and independent women. Those demographic groups likely give us some insight into the voters most ticked off by the Supreme Court’s latest decisions and, in some cases, those most motivated to turn out in November.


Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos.

The Coming Fight Over Out-Of-State Abortions

The Coming Fight Over Out-Of-State Abortions

Now may be a good time to max out your investments in airlines, car rental agencies, and intercity bus companies. Travel has picked up as the pandemic has ebbed, but the Supreme Court could give it an extra boost by revoking the constitutional right to abortion.

If that happens, a lot of American women are going to find that "shop local" is a useless slogan when it comes to this type of commerce. The pro-choice Center for Reproductive Rights has predicted that with Roe gone, "abortion would remain legal in twenty-one states and likely would be prohibited in twenty-four states."

Vast swathes of the continent would become abortion-free zones — free of legal abortions, anyway. But Americans have been traveling to get what they want since the Pilgrims arrived, and women with unwanted pregnancies are no exception.

In the days before Roe, when the procedure was illegal in most of America, places like New York and Washington state had lots of visitors who didn't come for recreation. Some 40 percent of all abortions were performed on patients outside their home state.

Already, liberal states are a destination for desperate abortion-seekers. Illinois, surrounded by states that have greatly restricted access, saw nearly 10,000 women come from out of state to get abortions in 2020, the Chicago Tribune reports. Planned Parenthood says that number may quadruple if Roe falls. We are on the verge of a wave of abortion refugees.

But anti-abortion advocates are not likely to accept this outcome as inevitable. A bill was introduced recently in the Missouri legislature to bar its residents from getting abortions out of state.

Republican Rep. Mary Elizabeth Coleman told Politico: "If you believe as I do that every person deserves dignity and respect and protection whether they're born or unborn, then of course you want to protect your citizens, no matter where they are." Though her measure didn't pass, it will undoubtedly inspire other states to enact their own bans.

That would be a radical step, but "radical" is a term of endearment in the anti-abortion movement. It would be a terrible idea, though, and one at odds with our entire system of federalism.

One of our fundamental freedoms, long recognized by the Supreme Court, is the right to travel within the United States and be treated as an equal citizen from sea to shining sea. A state government can no more burden the freedom of its residents who venture out of state than it can burden the freedom of migrants from out of state.

In 1969, the court struck down a California law imposing a residency requirement for public assistance. It said the rule violated the right to travel and amounted to "an unconstitutional discrimination which violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment."

For a state to assert its power over citizens beyond its borders would be an act of extreme presumption. Decades ago, when Nevada was the only state with legal casinos, everyone could go there and gamble without fear of bluenoses back home.

The same limits apply today. Utah can ban recreational cannabis, but its residents may drive to Colorado to get high. California may forbid the open carry of guns, but it can't stop Angelenos visiting Arizona from packing in public view.

As University of Pennsylvania law professor Seth Kreimer has written, one basic principle of American federalism is "that each citizen may take advantage of the liberties offered by any state." This arrangement also contributes to our national civic peace by accommodating a diversity of policies.

Anti-abortion advocates may argue that their cause is different because it involves life and death. Not so. A New Yorker who kills a fellow New Yorker in Atlanta and is acquitted under Georgia's "stand your ground" law cannot be convicted under New York's less lenient statutes.

Conservatives, who champion state sovereignty, should recognize that only one state can be sovereign within its borders. Otherwise, every state could extend its policies into the other 49 states.

The right should also beware of handing a new weapon to progressives. If a state can punish conduct that takes place in another state, Connecticut, which bans "assault weapons," could imprison a resident who uses one for target shooting in Maine. The possibilities for liberal mischief are endless.

If and when the enemies of Roe win their greatest victory, they will be tempted to seize every possible method of exploiting this success. But even the long reach of the law needs limits.

Reprinted with permission from Creators.