Louisiana Woman Is Forced Carry Headless Fetus to Term or Travel to Florida for Legal Abortion

[Nevilledog]

Link to tweet

https://jezebel.com/louisiana-woman-is-forced-carry-headless-fetus-to-term-1849418243

A pregnant woman in Louisiana says she’s being forced to choose between carrying fetus that lacks a skull and the top of its head (as a result of a rare condition called acrania) to term, or traveling several states over for a legal abortion, since Louisiana has banned abortion with very narrow exceptions.

“It’s hard knowing that I’m carrying it to bury it,” Nancy Davis, who’s 13 weeks pregnant and is already the mother of one child, told local news station WAFB9 on Monday. A few weeks ago, she had her first ultrasound and was told the fetus wouldn’t survive—but that she would have to either carry and birth the nonviable fetus or travel to Florida, the closest state where abortion is still legal. Davis is running out of time to make her decision, however, because Florida bans the health service at 15 weeks.

Last Friday, the Louisiana Supreme Court allowed the state’s ban—which bans care except to save a pregnant person’s life or in some cases when the fetus won’t survive—to take effect, though litigation to block the ban remains ongoing. Louisiana’s ban includes an exception for some fetal conditions, but acrania isn’t on the Louisiana Department of Health’s narrow list of qualifying conditions.

Louisiana’s ban—and certainly, the constant legal back-and-forth around it—is already taking a massive toll on the state’s health care system that will only get worse now that all three of the state’s clinics were forced to permanently relocate out-of-state on Monday. Before Davis, one Louisiana doctor testified in an affidavit challenging the ban that her patient was forced to endure a “painful, hours-long labor to deliver a nonviable fetus, despite her wishes and best medical advice,” after the ban temporarily took effect last month.

*snip*

[2 Meow Momma]

1. This is barbaric! nt

[Demovictory9]

15. Agreed

[Turbineguy]

2. A headless person

would be a perfect republican.

I can see their point.

[Haggard Celine]

3. They've got to force these women to

carry headless futuses. They could be future Republican nominees. Not laughing, but honestly this is too stupid for anyone to possibly defend. As more and more of these cases are reported, it's going to make the public more and more incensed about these ridiculous laws.

[patphil]

4. Governments shouldn't be involved in the reproductive process.

There are just too many stupid, idiotic people in positions of authority to allow for what is an obvious, rational, health related decision.

But then, since so many of these brainless idiots are just that, there seems to be a lot of lawmakers who's lack of brains hasn't prevented them from getting to where they are, so they see no problem with a woman giving birth to a brainless child.
They see this fetus as a kindred spirit...a potential republican voter.

[ShazzieB]

37. Hard agree!

This is none of the government's business. The only people who should be involved with a decision about carrying a pregnancy to term are medical experts and the person carrying the pregnancy (with input from their partner where appropriate). Involving the government in these intimate decisions is a recipe for chaos, as we have been seeing ever since Roe was struck down and draconian abortion bans have become more and more common.

The bitter irony is that the party that claims (or at least used to claim) to support small government is the one that now wants to crawl up in every uterus and control its owner's life!

[Tommymac]

80. They DO support a smaller government - a 1 Party XTian Theocracy.

Their particularly stinky brand of christianity is hateful, misogynistic, barbaric and sick.

As are all who follow it.

Fuck Them running.

BTW, the law needs to be amended so that the father of any damaged, incestual or raped caused fetus that must be carried to term by the mother is also sterilized. By having his testes cut off - no wimpy tube snipping here.

That will change things in a hurry.

[enough]

5. Absolute indifference to human suffering.

[Irish_Dem]

6. It is not indifference, it is deliberate. Suffering is the point.

Subjugation of women, torture, demoralize them to the point of surrender.
Make them docile and obedient.

[JoanofArgh]

8. THIS. Perfectly said.

[2naSalit]

11. Precisely.

That is the intent.

[BidenRocks]

30. It's the Christian thing to do.

I am not afraid of burning in hell due to compassion!

[Irish_Dem]

33. Christians have been killing people into submission for a long time.

[shrike3]

90. So did societies thousands of years before Christianity.

[Irish_Dem]

91. Yep. It is the human condition.

[Thomas Hurt]

13. This is about ending those works of man that interrupt the just results of Eve's sin.

God won't stop abortion and birth control so women suffer properly, so the christofascists decided to play God and do it themselves.

[Rebl2]

44. 👆👆👆

[JoanofArgh]

7. The GOP hates women. The downright hate and disgust is astounding.

[Irish_Dem]

10. Men are furious that women are educated, making good money, independent.

After six million years of human history with men being in charge, men are not going to put up with females being equal and having rights.

[maxrandb]

16. Ding! Ding! Ding!

You nailed it.

My bride and I were just invited to a nieces wedding. She's 35, and this will be her 1ST, hopefully only, marriage.

In our extended family, we commented that unlike our parents generation, folks are getting married in their 30s, not their teens and 20s. Quite a few are still single in their mid-30s to early 40s.

Women have more options now. They can choose when, or if they want to have children.

The patriarchy doesn't like that.

When women have options, you either work at being a better man deserving of her commitment, or you tear her down.

It's obvious what the Retrumplicans have chosen.

[Irish_Dem]

27. Young women who face unwanted pregnancies, drop out of school, do not get good jobs,

don't have access to a decent income.

So with just one SC ruling, women are set back 100 years.

Good point, when women are once again trapped with no options, they have to put up with bad treatment. I guess GOP men didn't want to have to work to gain a woman's interest.

[llmart]

75. +1

My daughter didn't marry until she was 35. I made sure she went to college in hopes that she would see that she could support herself comfortably with a professional career and not feel as if she needed to marry (as I did at 19) just to have a roof over her head. She chose to have a child at 40 and it will be her only one.

[wnylib]

36. In patriarchal societies, yes.

Not true of all societies, which demonstrates that it is due to cultural attitudes and is not universally intrinsic human behavior.

The same RW misogynists who are doing this today were bragging 20 years ago that they were liberating Afghan women from the Taliban. They are the same hypocrites who denounce Biden for harming women by withdrawing from Afghanistan. Be careful when fighting an enemy that you do not become like them in the process.

[Irish_Dem]

39. Unfortunately, matriarchal societies are the exception, not the rule.

At least on Earth. Maybe some other planet has more sense than this one.

I think it is such a universal given for millions of years of human history it must be wired in.
Male testosterone loads on power, control, dominance as survival of the species, tribe by tribe.

But it becomes counter productive as we now have the technology to end the species.

However even if it is wired in, men have the ability to make some mid course corrections to save the species.

[wnylib]

47. The sex drive is universal and hard wired.

Testosterone contributes to male physical strength and to behavior. But subjugation of women in a society is not a hard wired cultural feature. Even in societies like ours, there are men who do not fit the role of subjugating women.

In some cultures, women counterbalance male assertiveness with close "sisterhood" ties in women's groups, sharing child care, birthing attendance, health care, cooking, and even protection if needed. Their groups are a culturally accepted structure in society that is recognized and respected. They have a voice in community affairs that affect the society as a whole, even though males have governing roles in the society. A noted example are the customs of Iroquoian (Haudenosaunee) people. But they are not the only example.

In some societies of Africa, the geographical and biological source of Homo sapiens, there have been similar cultural structures.

Emphasis on nuclear family societies gives men an opportunity to subjugate women because of a more isolated (for women) social structure of families. When women are vulnerable while pregnant and caring for children, men can take a more exclusive, dominant control over women's lives. But, even in societies like that, there is a range of male behaviors, from those who respect women as partners in life to those who dominate and control them mercilessly.

Male chimps use intimidation and aggression to impress and try to dominate females. But Jane Goodell reported female chimps hanging together in groups and warding off excessive aggression from males in some chimp troops.

Our society is nuclear family oriented. Women in our American (and European) societies, plus some other cultures in the world, have had to band together to fight for rights and full respect.

[Irish_Dem]

51. Yes but for six million years, men have been tearing up the world.

I think aggression, dominance, power and control has to be hard wired in.

[wnylib]

53. Those traits are part of our biology, for sure. Some cultures

emphasize and encode them to the point of idolizing them. Others don't.

[shrike3]

59. Also, males in some mammal species will kill a competitor's offspring so that the females will mate

with him, and his bloodline will carry on, not his rivals.

I have to wonder if that doesn't play some roles.

You're absolutely correct about "sisterhood" ties.

[wnylib]

65. Lions kill all the cubs when they take over

a pride after the price's male has died.

So gruesome.

[Hugh_Lebowski]

79. Bonobo society is a good example from nature ...

The females are basically in charge ... which is because they bond in ways like you describe, creating a powerful sisterhood.

Also, interesting fact ... the females are also sexually very liberated, if you will. They're basically down, and not real picky.

As a result, a given male doesn't actually know which offspring is 'his'. Which has led to them being much more docile (and kind to all the group's offspring, cause they all 'could be' theirs) than what is seen with our mutual cousins, the chimpanzee, which is much more a 'tournament' species.

In the human man's lizard brain, I think they're making a connection between women being sexually/reproductively liberated ... and a loss of their domination within the species. I think this sort of fear is mostly instinctual, at least for a sizable part of the male population.

[wnylib]

81. Regarding male fear of the loss of domination,

Last edited Wed Aug 17, 2022, 12:47 PM - Edit history (1)

I think that's true in societies that have been pretty strongly male dominated. I remember the early years of the women's movement when men felt threatened by the presence of women in traditionally male occupations. I remember the put downs of any woman who persisted in pursuing an interest as a hobby or as a career outside of the social "norms."

But in one or two generations, most men and women have adjusted fairly well to shifting roles and views of each other. There is still a ways to go for full mutual respect and equality, but, prior to the current political backlash, we were progressing.

That capability of adjusting and adapting is also hard wired. Human flexibility is one of our strong points that has allowed us as a species to survive challenges and changes, both social and environmental.

There are still some males who would prefer to subjugate women back to the 1950s, or to the Middle Ages, if they could. There is always a range of behaviors and views among people on any issue - a spectrum. But not all men are hard wired with dominance to the point of suppressing and controlling women.

One topic that gets overlooked in these discussions of what is hard wired in human beings is whether women are hard wired to accept dominance and subjugation. As a woman, I can assure you that many, if not most, of us are not. We might be socially conditioned from birth, but the fact that we successfully challenge and break out of that imposed subjugation indicates that we are not at all hard wired to accept it.

[Hugh_Lebowski]

83. Great post, thx :)

The only point I might take a small disagreement on is that the sort of 'occupational control' you mention in the early part ... I think that is less closely linked to our reptile brains than matters related to sex/reproduction.

Women (and all females of all species) have always 'worked', granted it was largely in the home prior to the last 100 years or so, but women have always been expected to contribute with work of various kinds, so that change you speak of I think was perhaps more easily 'accepted'.

I would note that even in that case, the main complaint back then was 'women should be taking care of the kids, not out working'. I.E. the ties to the reproductive process were a big focus of the resistance to that change in society.

Main point is 'occupations' are a human construct in most ways. Reproduction, however? Not even remotely so.

Personally think our biological heritage, in particular our close relationship with chimps, plays a huge part in why sexual/reproductive control of women is so prominent, through all time, and even still, if you look at it worldwide.

Consider the Alpha chimp male. He considers himself entitled to all females in their clan. They are to reproduce only with him. But he can't be everywhere at once. The females could easily 'cheat' with lesser males. Which then means the Alpha is providing resources and protection for offspring not his own. Reproductive control of the females is foremost in his mind after food, water, other basic survival stuff.

And not that the Alpha chimp is consciously aware of it, but the females 'cheating' could be detrimental to the species as a whole. The reason that 'tournament' species exists in mammals is because it's a successful strategy in biology/evolution, as it increases the chances that offspring will be hearty/strong because they're sired by the strongest male.

Obviously, not everyone is as strongly influenced by certain parts of our biological heritage, and as I say, bonobo are our other close cousin, and I think humanity is mostly a mix of the traits of both our cousins, in various doses (if you will) of each species, at the individual level. I think of the Conservatives as thinking/acting more like chimps overall, and us Libs acting more like bonobo.

This isn't meant to 'give an excuse for the bad behavior', it's just looking at the 30,000ft level, WHY does this phenomenon of males asserting sexual/reproductive domination over females exist, and why is it seen in damn near every culture, across all of time? And why can't it be eradicated as a 'way of thinking/acting' through nurture alone?

A behavioral phenomenon like that, in my view has to be genetic, and hence tied to our evolutionary heritage. And you only have to look as far as our CLOSEST relative ... to see a very strong analog.

Seems cut and dry to me, but I'm sure some will take issue with it.

[wnylib]

88. A couple points.

Occupation as a human construct - yes and no, depending on the occupation. Prior to our modern supermarkets, hunting and gathering of vegetation were instinctual necessities of life - hard wired for survival, and for pragmatic reasons, were divided by gender roles. Men hunted because they were physically freer and usually stronger due to hormonal differences. Pregnant women and nursing mothers did not have that physical freedom, so they gathered the vegetation while tending children and were the source of the development of agriculture.

What you are calling occupational constructs are usually called social gender roles. Those roles are very flexible from one society to another, outside of the biologically limited ones of childbearing and nursing.

The socially assigned gender roles are not hard wired, but they fulfill hardwired necessities of food, social interaction, and stability through organization of society.

The widespread existence of male dominance has a few sources. One is the human tendency (in both males and females) to take advantage of power opportunities. A woman in advanced pregnancy, during birth, and when caring for infants is vulnerable. Men could easily take advantage of that opportunity to be controlling. But, for the survival of their family and the species, they also need to be protective of the vulnerability of women and children rather than turn aggression on them.

While women in the past were consumed with infant and child care and food provision, men were more easily capable of activities outside of home, in herding, hunting, government, and, as societies grew more complex, in other occupations.

In other words, male dominance is itself a social construct that varies from one society to another. Some societies are more egalitarian, with women participating in community decisions. And women are quite capable of exerting power, individually and in groups.

Another source of male dominance is redirection of the hard wired human instinct of hunting for food. When societies changed from hunter gatherers to farmers, that drive had to go somewhere. It often went into social power and control. But not always, and where it did exist, it was in varying degrees by both class and gender.

There have always been leaders and followers among human beings, alpha leaders and the rest who followed. Like other mammals (dogs, chimps, and most herd animals) humans are hard wired to have leaders. But, we do not accept, or give allegiance to bad leaders for long. Both men and women rebel against absolutism and subjugation. That, too, is hard wired into us.

Regarding chimps, they do not practice mate bonding,
acknowledge possession of their offspring, or defend individual mates and offspring. When a troop is threatened, the females and youngest offspring go to the center of the troop. The adult and adolescent males surround them and fight against the threat. They defend the troop as a group, but not as individuals.

Male domination is a hard wired instinct for hunting and defense that gets redirected, usually to competition among males for alpha status to be leaders. When it is directed at females for power, subjugation, and control, it is misdirected. If carried too far, it is detrimental to the society as a whole because it stifles what women can contribute. Most societies have some brakes on that within their customs and laws, even in male dominated societies.

Human beings, chimps, and bonobos have a common, unidentified ancestor. So we share genes and characteristics with our nearest ape cousins. One of the ways that we differ from chimps in behavior is that we have more self restraint (usually). Chimps are more excitable and more inclined to impulsive behaviors, including impulsive aggression when fearful. They also generally do not delay immediate gratification for future gain. One trait difference that I found interesting in a study was that chimps do not understand pointing gestures. Humans do, of course. So do dogs and cats. But not chimps. They are also more inclined to selfishness than sharing if they cannot see an immediate gain from sharing. In a video, Alan Alda narrated an interesting study on these traits.

Bonobos tend to solve all disputes with sex. They trade off sexual favors for peace. Females usually lead on this, but not always. Sex among bonobos is heterosexual and same sex with nearly equal frequency, so there is no sexual incentive for male dominance of females.

[scarletlib]

52. That may not be true.

Little is known about human behavior prior to written records. Lots of research and re-thinking about prehistoric societies is going on.

What is known is that approximately 4000 years BCE a religion of warlike, male gods emerged. Men began to dominate. They wrote the stories. Their words have influenced thought and philosophy. Female voice were silenced and ignored.

Bottom line we have been singing only one song since that time. Before that there may have been different societies and different songs.

We can never really know. However, we are cognizant thinking animals. We can change.

[shrike3]

58. Polytheistic societies who worshipped goddesses weren't necessarily all that kind to human women.

Male mammals in species like certain apes, lions and even horses will kill an offspring that isn't there.

I wonder if that's where some of this comes from. The male urge not to raise what isn't his bloodline.

[Irish_Dem]

70. 5,000 years of recorded human history is enough time to see human patterns?

It is probably safe to assume that the gender patterns existed prior recorded history starting in Sumeria.

With some rare exceptions.

Yes of course, like the famous quote, biology is not destiny.

Mankind is capable of changing, adapting, evolving.
I would have thought we would have made more progress by this time.

[scarletlib]

72. Okay. Not going to get into any arguments about this except to say:

There is an entire body of written work beginning in the 1970’s exploring the issues of gender and women’s roles in prehistory. I read quite a bit of it but am no expert.
It’s not fairy tale thinking but based on archaeological artifacts, sites, etc. The people writing the books, mostly women but also men, are re-evaluating our very ancient past.

Old assumptions about who did what when are just that—assumptions. Did man harness fire? Who knows. Could just as easily been a woman or maybe both sexes in different places at different times.
Were these societies cooperative, mostly matriarchal? Lot of evidence re-examined would say yes.
These are just a few examples.

The only things we know about our history have all been told by men and those not so long ago given the expanse of time. Their story would have us believe they alone were responsible for everything ever found or discovered.

The literature is out there.
Thank you for listening. I am quite passionate about this and history in general.

[Maru Kitteh]

63. Daughter just told me; "For the first time in human history, men *have* to be nice

in order to have a successful relationship with a woman. It’s a skill set a large number of men were simply never prepared to hold.”

In short, for most of history a man could buy a woman to take care of him, do his chores, bear his children and to use for sex. Maybe they would bond, but that often wasn’t really the goal or the point. In modern history that purchase took the form of financial entrapment, i.e., “oh yeah? Where you gonna go?” enforced by the systems built in a white-male controlled society.

[Irish_Dem]

69. Good points. Men now have to treat women well to get what they used to get automatically.

Women having reproductive control gave women way too much power, education and financial security.

Men have to treat women with respect and kindness to get what they want.

Your daughter hit the nail on the head.

[Initech]

9. This is just the beginning. It's only gonna get worse from here.

Fuck pro lifers and the Christian right. If there is a hell it waits for them.

[2naSalit]

12. Why wait?

The rest of us should make it hell for them here since they are so intent on doing that to us.

Life's too short for us to wait for them to die, show them why their ideas suck.

[Initech]

18. I'm OK with that!

[calimary]

20. So am I!

Is there a fund to help the woman get to Florida?

[WhiskeyGrinder]

35. The article doesn't indicate that she needs funds, but it's always a good time to donate to an

abortion fund, which provides direct aid to people trying to get abortions. There are several in both Louisiana and Florida, or you can donate to one in your area:

https://abortionfunds.org/need-abortion/

[wnylib]

40. There are funds in NY to cover transportation and abortion costs.

Information at this link on travel and housing assistance for out of state women as well as help with the cost of an abortion procedure, up to 24 weeks of pregnancy.

https://www.choicesmedical.com/out-of-town-abortion-program/

[thecrow]

14. Despicable

These men should be forced to carry these fetuses around in their bellies.
You know, “Do unto others as you would have done unto yourself.”
I know of NO woman who deserves this callous, heartless treatment by men OR women.

[IrishAfricanAmerican]

17. As despicable and ghoulish as it is...

these are the very headlines that will motivate voters to shut this shit down.

[Jade Fox]

21. Exactly!

[Hortensis]

25. Yes.

[crud]

19. sue the state

on behalf of the fetus for pain and suffering. The grieving mom probably has no standing.

[JudyM]

38. Excellent post.

[Seinan Sensei]

22. Legislators practicing medicine without a license

[Ilsa]

85. That's what I've been saying. And, if they can

force you to carry it, they can force you to abort.

[Higherarky]

89. ∆∆∆THIS!!!!∆∆∆ ALL. DAY. LONG!!! X INFINITY!!!!

PRO-CHOICE

IS

PRO-LIFE

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Probatim]

23. And who's going to pay for the care of this non-viable pregnancy?

On top of the barbarism of these laws, these families, these women, are on the hook for the additional medical expenses for their torture.

If cruelty is the point, republicans are on top of their game.

[EnergizedLib]

24. What is the benefit of this?

This is just cruelty out in the open. If our elected officials won’t give us a voice, we’ll just have to give them the boot.

For women’s safety, we must restore Roe.

[Nevilledog]

31. The cruelty is the point. Seriously, it's that simple and evil.

[LisaL]

32. There is no benefit.

These abortion ban laws are poorly written, and either make no exceptions for the viability of the fetus, or it's unclear as to what exactly the exception means.

[Bristlecone]

26. "They make you carry it to bury it" A dark, morbid slogan

That should be hung around the neck of every single Republican.

[dchill]

28. The problem here is religious/philosophical...

Their religious beliefs tell them that a non-viable headless fetus could easily be the next President... IF it turns out to be a Republican male.

[ismnotwasm]

29. These disgusting forced birth fuckers

And they absolutely don’t care

[barbtries]

34. i think it's a perk to anti-abortionists

to be able to visit this type of cruelty on women. you know, the lesser sex?

[iluvtennis]

41. Cruel and evil - fk the GQP. n/t

[Emile]

42. Sick republicans. .

[DownriverDem]

43. I would go

to Florida. I just don't get these disgusting MAGA repubs.

[LymphocyteLover]

45. this is criminal -- fucking cruel GOP sadist fucks make me sick

[Paladin]

46. I hope this tragic incident gets maximum public exposure.

And I want to hear immediate justifications from LA politicos for this cruel and barbaric situation. This is what happens when dimwitted, woman-hating politicians are allowed to practice medicine.

[Texin]

48. This is absolute extreme barbarism. It's worse than living in a an undeveloped,

unmapped, unknown territory. It's traveling back in time to when humans lived in caves or mud huts. Insanity. I'm just livid after reading this.

[alfredo]

49. They thought it was destined to be a Republican

[scarletlib]

50. If the baby survives to be born, it will die upon birth if not stillborn.

No hope of survival with that condition.

This is cruelty to the maximum and barbarous for a civilized, technically advanced society.

Absolutely nothing positive or of value in causing the parents to suffer through this.

[usaf-vet]

54. Words can not express the anger I feel in reading this. There is evil in the world & this is it.

[FBaggins]

55. How could that be true?

Abortionfinder.org says that LA allows abortion “ If the fetus is not expected to survive the pregnancy”

How could that not apply here?

[LisaL]

56. That could be old info.

"In 2006, Louisiana passed a trigger law that bans all abortions except to prevent "substantial risk of death or permanent impairment under certain circumstances." "


https://www.cnet.com/health/abortion-laws-state-by-state-where-is-abortion-banned-in-the-us-in-2022/

[maxrandb]

57. The article says this particular fetal condition is not included in the exemptions

This is what happens when Retrumplican politicians play doctor.

There are thousands of conditions that impact fetal viability. If you happen to have one that didn't make the list, you're screwed.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

60. Kick

[Solly Mack]

61. ...

[Stinky The Clown]

62. I simply could NOT read the story. The title tells me all I need to know.

I gave this a rec because but seems an important story.

Headless fetus is all this old man needed to know.



I FUCKING HATE THE AMERICAN TALIBAN THAT CAUSES SUCH ATROCITIES.

[efhmc]

64. Has anything changed here?

I want so much to hear that thus woman has had an abortion.

[uponit7771]

66. They are ghoulish ... just straight up ghoulish

[Hermit-The-Prog]

67. Roe your vote against the barbarism of the radicalized Republican party

Roe, Roe, Roe your vote
against theocracy!
Republicans revoke your rights
and kill democracy!

[GoodRaisin]

68. This is an atrocity.

It should be condemned by the entire world.

[Norbert]

71. And, of course, the MAGA reply which I heard last month if, "Fake News!"

The MAGAts do not want to hear exceptions to their black and white thinking.

[kacekwl]

73. I have not heard this story anywhere but here.

Why not ? Where is the media ? Pro choice advocates ? This story alone should bury pro fascist Republicans.

[MindHowYouGo]

87. Several Other Outlets are Covering

Vice: https://www.vice.com/en/article/4ax38w/louisiana-woman-headless-fetus-abortion-ban
Daily Beast: https://www.thedailybeast.com/louisiana-woman-nancy-david-denied-abortion-for-fetus-with-top-of-skull-missing-report-says
Local News: https://www.kktv.com/2022/08/17/mother-claims-she-was-denied-abortion-despite-babys-fatal-condition/

[AllyCat]

74. The cruelty is the point to the GQP.

[Pepsidog]

76. Google Acrania for truly horrifying images of babies born with this condition. They need to see what

their cruel laws cause people to suffer.

[Upthevibe]

77. Nevilledog............................

.........................

[niyad]

78. FUCK EVERY SINGLE GODDAMNED WOMAN-HATER WHO GOT US HERE.

[keithbvadu2]

82. Decency, common sense, and empathy are totally lacking in the republican/conservative/supposed pro-l

Decency, common sense, and empathy are totally lacking in the republican/conservative/supposed pro-life sphere.

[Ilsa]

84. The birth will be a traumatic nightmare for anyone in attendance:

There is no skull to push open the birth canal. Either legs, butt, or shoulders (breach) would emerge first, I bet, unless the head is literally squeezed into a narrow tube shape in the canal and pushed through.

If they make her go through this, it should be videoed, and the legislators and judges should be forced to watch what happens to the baby.

I'm wondering if the woman can starve herself enough, drink, etc so the fetus barely grows and then miscarries.

[housecat]

86. Medieval

[lindysalsagal]

92. I'd love to know if she voted for the legislators who passed this stone-age ban?

Will these christo-fascists ever wake up? And what will they do when all of the doctors leave these christo-fascist states? Keep using the services of the woke states????