Even in the third trimester, they will abort healthy babies carried by healthy mothers. And then they'll falsify health justifications in the paperwork.
Carr signed papers claiming Atkins needed a 6 month abortion to avoid "substantial & irreversible harm" to her physical health. Carr meant only that pregnancy takes physical tolls & "changes your path in life."
When pressed, Carr agreed that her claiming Atkins would have suffered irreversible physical harm was inaccurate.
Carr signed papers claiming Atkins needed a 6 month abortion to avoid "substantial & irreversible harm" to her mental health. Carr later said that was speculation and she had not conducted any kind of mental health assessment.
Carr signed papers claiming Atkins needed a 6 month abortion to avoid "substantial & irreversible harm" to her family's health. Carr later agreed that claim was pure speculation. She never talked to anyone in Atkin's family.
Carr signed papers claiming Atkins needed a 6 month abortion to avoid "substantial & irreversible harm" to her safety. Carr later said she had only been speculating. She conducted no assessment of Atkin's safety.
Finally Carr signed papers claiming Atkins needed abortion to avoid "substantial & irreversible harm" to her well-being. Carr suggested if Atkins had her baby she might "just work at Applebee's for the rest of her life." This apparently is reason enough to abort a viable child.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Keisha Atkins wrongful death lawsuit resulted in a $1.26M settlement with University of New Mexico and Curtis Boyd's Southwestern Women's Options abortion clinic. abqjournal.com/2497307/unm-cl…
The lawsuit alleged Southwestern Women's Options was negligent and fell below standards of care when treating Aktins, and that University of New Mexico was negligent in referring Atkins to the clinic in the first place. Clinic paid $900k, UNM paid $365k.
Remember this when people claim post-viability abortions of healthy fetuses don't exist because they are "just birth."
People change their minds about abortion all the time. Check out our new collection with hundreds of examples of why people switched from being pro-choice to pro-life. secularprolife.org/becoming-pro-l…
Recurring themes include direct experience with pregnancy
Stigmatized abortion increases the cultural pressure for women to carry to term. I think both sides recognize that. But less discussed is the fact that destigmatized abortion increases the cultural pressure for women to abort.
Do you think it's pro-choice people in general or specific to abortion proponents on Twitter to be so oblivious to this phenomenon?
The idea that there's no cultural pressure to abort is so incorrect it's difficult to believe the ignorance is incidental. I'll start collecting examples here. Believe them or don't, but the info is easily available.
We tried to respond to the most common pro-choice claims we're hearing right now. Did we miss anything? secularprolife.org/2022/06/respon…
1. Abortion bans mean women won’t be able to get treatment for ectopic pregnancy.
No abortion laws outlaw treatment of ectopic pregnancy. Quite the opposite, many explicitly exempt treatment of ectopic pregnancy from their definitions of abortion.
Some people worried about ectopic pregnancy cite a recent controversy in Missouri, but at no point was Missouri outlawing treatment of ectopic pregnancy. We go into great detail here: secularprolife.org/2022/03/no-mis…
People focus on the Thomas quote from his concurrence. But no other justices signed on, concurrences aren't binding, and he was objecting to methods by which past Courts came to their rulings (substantive due process), not the results themselves (expanding contraception use). 2/5
In the Opinion of the Court, which is binding, they repeatedly state that other rights grounded in the right to privacy (e.g. contraception & gay marriage) are completely different from abortion (bc they don't involve destroying fetal life). 3/5
Monica speaking (so not our resident attorney, Kelsey). Reading the Dobbs decision now. 🧵with notes. First and foremost: "Held: The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion."
Court argues Casey skipped the question of whether the Constitution confers a right to abortion, reaffirming Roe based on precedent alone. So the Court will consider that question now, with Dobbs.
The Court will consider whether (1) there's an implicit Constitutional right to abortion in the 14th Amendment, (2) abortion is rooted in our nation's history and tradition, & (3) a right to abortion is part of a broader entrenched right supported by precedents. 3/