#abortion center

[hersmartchoice0]

Abortion Clinic Van Nuys | Her Smart Choice

Facing an unplanned pregnancy? Her Smart Choice in Van Nuys offers a compassionate abortion center. Get confidential support & explore your options, including the abortion pill & in-clinic procedures. We provide judgment-free services to help you make the best decision for your health. Call today for a free consultation. 

[rupaliabrtioncentre]

Best Medical Abortion Services in New Delhi 

Dr. Rupali Medical Abortion Center is providing a procedure that uses medication to terminate a pregnancy. In our medical center we offer a very safe and hygienic ways  to terminate the pregnancy without any pain:- 

The Ultrasound scan is essential to know the gestational period of the foetus. Medical abortion center method doesn't require any surgery as its a non-invasive procedure.  Visit Dr. Rupali Medical Abortion Center for the safest and hygienic abortion. 

[hellyeahscarleteen]

How can you tell whether a clinic is a real health center or a crisis pregnancy center?

The FWHC offers this sound advice on how to find a reliable, bonafide clinic, no matter what choice a pregnant person is making:

• Select clinics that provide the full range of contraceptive alternatives. • Ask on the phone if they provide or refer for abortion services. Avoid centers that refuse to give a straightforward answer. • Do not use the ones listed in yellow pages under Abortion Alternatives. • Be cautious when surfing the web. Often you will find anti-abortion religious-based websites disguised as pro-choice information. Keep searching for reliable information. • Select clinics that have clearly established reputations. Avoid centers with ambiguous descriptions. Avoid clinics whose staff do not provide full, clear answers regarding their services. Ask friends or relatives you trust!

(From Crisis Pregnancy Centers: Harm, Not Help)

[gwydionmisha]

Democrats are trying to block funding to the propaganda clinics that try to trick pregnant people into entering to be barraged by misinformation in the guise of medicine.

Have something you want to tell your Congress Critters? If you can't safely contact them in person, here are some other options:

Call the Capitol Switchboard at (202) 224-3121 and ask to be connected to the representative of your choice.

Here is one that will send your reps a fax: https://resist.bot/

[theivorybilledwoodpecker]

Remember How "Prolifers" Swore They Knew an Ectopic Pregnancy Was Nonviable and Said We Were Fearmongering for Using It as an Example Against Abortion Bans?

According to a press release, Doe thought she might be pregnant in October 2022 and wanted to get an ultrasound. She found Clearway through an online search and got an appointment later that day. A Clearway nurse did an ultrasound and said the pregnancy was both viable and in her uterus; the suit says it’s against state medical regulations for registered nurses to read ultrasounds because they’re not licensed diagnosticians. A physician didn’t see Doe, though her discharge paperwork said a medical doctor provided her care. A month later, Doe felt shooting pain on her side and was so weak and lightheaded that her husband called 911, per the release. Emergency room doctors diagnosed her with a ruptured ectopic pregnancy and internal hemorrhage. In order to stop the hemorrhaging, doctors did emergency surgery in which they had to remove of one of her fallopian tubes. None of this should have been necessary, as legitimate medical providers would have ended Doe’s life-threatening pregnancy with medication—typically the cancer drug methotrexate.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

David McAfee and Matthew Chapman at Raw Story:

U.S. Sen. Katie Britt (R-AL) is being ridiculed on social media for a new piece of proposed legislation that, while billed as a child support bill for new moms, is being panned as yet another dystopian intrusion into women's pregnancies. Britt, who came to the forefront of the political conversation following her heavily-mocked response to President Joe Biden's 2024 State of the Union address, announced the More Opportunities for Moms to Succeed (MOMS) Act. The bill would create a registry of pregnant women, who would then be steered to support services that include "crisis pregnancy centers" — usually faith-based groups designed to shame or trick women seeking abortions into keeping their pregnancies anyway. "To all of my fellow moms out there, my goal is to give you and your children the opportunities to thrive and to live your American dreams," Britt said in a video announcing the policy.

Sen. Katie Britt (R-AL) coming in strong with the Handmaiden's Tale vibes with her grossly anti-abortion MOMS Act bill that purports to help women but in reality would promote fake clinics (crisis pregnancy centers) and have a federal pregnancy tracker.

See Also:

Salon: Katie Britt is back at it, pushing a bill to launch a pregnancy tracking federal database

[prolifeproliberty]

What would be your response to the pro-abortion argument that Crisis Pregnancy Centers falsely advertise themselves as medical centers, that they spread diseases, that they harass women, and that there should be more government oversight of those clinics and that they should be more transparent with how they use government money?

I made a pro life post recently and the pro-choicers and pro-abortionists are all over the whole supporting crisis pregnancy centers thing.

1. “Pregnancy centers falsely advertise as medical centers.”

Ask for examples. Ask them to show you a website or ad for a pregnancy center that says or implies they’re a medical center. Then check what services that center offers - many pregnancy centers do offer medical services!

This is where the confusion occurs - pregnancy centers are not all the same. Some are more “resource centers” that provide counseling, classes, material support like disappears and formula, and so on.

Others are more medical, and might offer ultrasounds and early prenatal care, along with annual well-woman exams, STD testing, and so on. These facilities usually have nurses and physician assistants, and sometimes have OB/Gyns who volunteer part-time. Almost all pregnancy centers offer pregnancy tests.

This is a good time to remind everyone that ALL pro-lifers should be familiar with the pregnancy centers in their area! Go to OptionLine.org and scroll down to “Find a Center Near You”. Put your zip code in the search. You’ll get a map view and a list of all the pregnancy centers registered with OptionLine (which will be most of them - you can also check CareNet’s directory to make sure you aren’t missing any)

You should know:

- Which center is closest to you

- Which centers offer pregnancy tests and ultrasounds

- Which (if any) offer STD testing and other gynecology services like well-woman exams

- Which offer things like diapers and formula

Bonus points: Call one or more of the centers and ask for a tour. Tell them you’re a pro-life advocate and you want to be more familiar with the pregnancy centers around you. They’re often more than willing to show you around! Meeting the staff and seeing the facility can really help if someone asks you where to find pregnancy help. There’s a big difference between “let me google that really quick” and “oh just go to ____ pregnancy center, the staff there are great and they offer [whatever services they offer]”

2. “Pregnancy centers spread diseases” Again, ask for evidence.

There used to be a great website that published abortion facility health inspections, but it appears to be deactivated. But if you google “Abortion clinic fails health inspection” (without the quotes) you’ll get multiple stories of abortion facilities in different states that failed their inspections over the last several years.

3. “They harass women”

Evidence, evidence, evidence. Pregnancy centers usually aren’t cold-calling. Women choose to go to them for help. Sidewalk advocates outside abortion facilities may direct women to the pregnancy centers, but they usually don’t work for the centers or represent them in an official capacity. And even then, sidewalk advocates usually aren’t harassing anyone. Standing outside an abortion facility and offering information is not harassment. So the person making this claim needs to provide evidence of pregnancy centers “harassing” women and define what they mean by harassment.

4. Oversight/use of government money:

The pregnancy centers I know and have researched all publish detailed financial reports. They rely on donors much more than they do the government, and they need to be transparent to maintain donors’ trust. So again, I would need an example of pregnancy centers that take government money AND don’t publish annual financial reports that show what they’re doing with the money.

When in doubt, ask the person who is making the claim to support it with evidence. If they can’t/won’t, you can dismiss them and their claims.

[safety-pin-punk]

Not very punk to be antifeminist and deny male privilege and the fact that women are allowed to criticize their oppressors! But that's to be expected from the "be gay do crime🤪" heterosexual fujoshis who'd call the cops on women protesting abortion rights lmfao

Ohhh no 😱 the TERFs found my ‘I hate TERFs’ post. Tragic. Im so hurt. Im so offended. Im gonna go cry in a corner.

Bitch its not that I dont understand how systematic oppression works, I just have enough braincells to recognize that (1) hating people because of the genitals they were born with is as idiotic as hating someone because of the color of their skin and (2) feminism is based on the idea of equality, not flipping which group is oppressed. That would make you a dick, not a feminist

[hersmartchoice0]

A Comprehensive Guide to Abortion and Pregnancy Alternatives

Exploring Alternatives

Parenting:

Involves embracing the responsibilities and joys of raising a child.

Consider emotional readiness, financial stability, and support systems.

Adoption:

Option to place the child in the care of adoptive parents.

Open adoption allows ongoing contact between birth parents and adoptive families.

Parenting and Educational Support:

Organizations offer parenting support for unplanned pregnancies.

Access resources and assistance to follow parenthood and educational goals.

Foster Care:

Temporary care for the child with licensed foster parents.

Allows the birth parent time to address their circumstances.

Considerations for Decision-Making

Personal Values and Beliefs:

Reflecting on personal values to align choices with individual convictions.

Health and Well-Being:

Evaluating physical and mental health when considering pregnancy options.

Seeking medical advice for insights into potential health impacts.

Emotional Support:

Engaging with a supportive network for emotional support during the decision-making process.

Talking about feelings and concerns to make decisions that feel right.

[silverware-is-interesting]

very minor no mercy run spoilers(?) under the cut maybe a little au of sorts?? idk and it's a bit long

honestly, i was happy at the time there wasn't a guardener fight (because i found her fight in the pacifist run kinda difficult) but now that i think about it could be quite... sad? if you know wat i mean?? maybe despite Axis's warning, and, y'know how he looked, she still did what she was programmed to do, which is protect the flowers & stuff like that. plus, she'd probably have much more defense in the geno run, so you'd just LOAD her with bullets, and maybe the backups too, not too sure

anyways, sorry for the block of text, i just think she had a lot of potential (not trying to seem like i don't like uty, of course!)

but basically, Clover would just shoot her with a fuckton of bullets as she slowly died, and some of her systems crash one at a time (idk 'bout that last part though, i'm not really clever when it comes to coding and that kinda stuff)

might make more about this concept, might not, idk

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Google makes millions on paid abortion disinformation

Google’s search quality has been in steady decline for years, and Google assures us that they’re working on it, though the most visible effort is replacing links to webpages with lengthy, florid paragraphs written by a confident habitual liar chatbot:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/02/16/tweedledumber/#easily-spooked

The internet is increasingly full of garbage, much of it written by other confident habitual liar chatbots, which are now extruding plausible sentences at enormous scale. Future confident habitual liar chatbots will be trained on the output of these confident liar chatbots, producing Jathan Sadowski’s “Habsburg AI”:

https://twitter.com/jathansadowski/status/1625245803211272194

But the declining quality of Google Search isn’t merely a function of chatbot overload. For many years, Google’s local business listings have been terrible. Anyone who’s tried to find a handyman, a locksmith, an emergency tow, or other small businessperson has discovered that Google is worse than useless for this. Try to search for that locksmith on the corner that you pass every day? You won’t find them — but you will find a fake locksmith service that will dispatch an unqualified, fumble-fingered guy with a drill and a knockoff lock, who will drill out your lock, replace it with one made of bubblegum and spit, and charge you 400% the going rate (and then maybe come back to rob you):

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/31/business/fake-online-locksmiths-may-be-out-to-pick-your-pocket-too.html

Google is clearly losing the fraud/spam wars, which is pretty awful, given that they have spent billions to put every other search engine out of business. They spend $45b every year to secure exclusivity deals that prevent people from discovering or using rivals — that’s like buying a whole Twitter every year, just so they don’t have to compete:

https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/how-a-google-antitrust-case-could/

But there’s an even worse form of fraudulent listing on Google, one they could do something about, but choose not to: ad-fraud. For all the money and energy thrown into “dark SEO” to trick Google into putting your shitty, scammy website at the top of the listings, there’s a much simpler method. All you need to do is pay Google — buy an ad, and your obviously fraudulent site will be right there, at the top of the search results.

There are so many top searches that go to fraud or malware sites. Tech support is a favorite. It’s not uncommon to search for tech support for Google products and be served a fake tech-support website where a scammer will try to trick you into installing a remote-access trojan and then steal everything you have, and/or take blackmail photos of you with your webcam:

https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/google-search-ads-infiltrated-again-by-tech-support-scams/

This is true even when Google has a trivial means of reliably detecting fraud. Take the restaurant monster-in-the-middle scam: a scammer clones the menu of a restaurant, marking up their prices by 15%, and then buys the top ad slot for searches for that restaurant. Search for the restaurant, click the top link, and land on a lookalike site. The scammer collects your order, bills your card, then places the same order, in your name, with the restaurant.

The thing is, Google runs these ads even for restaurants that are verified merchants — Google mails the restaurant a postcard with a unique number on it, and the restaurant owner keys that number in to verify that they are who they say they are. It would not be hard for Google to check whether an ad for a business matches one of its verified merchants, and, if so, whether the email address is a different one from the verified one on file. If so, Google could just email the verified address with a “Please confirm that you’re trying to buy an ad for a website other than the one we have on file” message:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/02/24/passive-income/#swiss-cheese-security

Google doesn’t do this. Instead, they accept — and make a fortune from — paid disinformation, across every category.

But not all categories of paid disinformation are equally bad: it’s one thing to pay a 15% surcharge on a takeout meal, but there’s a whole universe of paid medical disinformation that Google knows about and has an official policy of tolerating.

This paid medical disinformation comes from “crisis pregnancy centers”: these are fake abortion clinics that raise huge sums from religious fanatics to buy ads that show up for people seeking information about procuring an abortion. If they are duped by one of these ads, they are directed to a Big Con-style storefront staffed by people who pretend that they perform abortions, but who bombard their marks with falsehoods about health complications.

These con artists try to trick their marks into consenting to sexual assault — a transvaginal ultrasound. This is a prelude to another fraud, in which the “sporadic electrical impulses” generated by an early fetal structure is a “heartbeat” (early fetuses do not have hearts, so they cannot produce heartbeats):

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/womens-health/heartbeat-bills-called-fetal-heartbeat-six-weeks-pregnancy-rcna24435

If the victim still insists on getting an abortion, the fraudsters will use deceptive tactics to draw out the process until they run out the clock for a legal abortion, procuring a forced birth through deceit.

It is hard to imagine a less ethical course of conduct. Google’s policy of accepting “crisis pregnancy center” ads is the moral equivalent of taking money from fake oncologists who counsel people with cancer to forego chemotherapy in favor of juice-cleanses.

There is no ambiguity here: the purpose of a “crisis prengancy center” is to deceive people seeking abortions into thinking they are dealing with an abortion clinic, and then further deceive them into foregoing the abortion, by means of lies, sexually invasive and unnecessary medical procedures, and delaying tactics.

Now, a new report from the Center for Countering Digital Hate finds that Google made $10m last year on ads from “crisis pregnancy centers”:

https://www.wired.com/story/google-made-millions-from-ads-for-fake-abortion-clinics/

Many of these “crisis pregnancy centers” are also registered 501(c)3 charities, which makes them eligible for Google’s ad grants, which provide free ads to nonprofits. Marketers who cater to “crisis pregnancy center” advertise that they can help their clients qualify for these grants. In 2019, Google was caught giving tens of thousands of dollars’ worth of free ads to “crisis pregnancy centers”:

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/may/12/google-advertising-abortion-obria

The keywords that “crisis pregnancy centers” bid up include “Planned Parenthood” — meaning that if actual Planned Parenthood clinics want to appear at the top of the search for “planned parenthood,” they have to outbid the fraudsters seeking to deceive Planned Parenthood patients.

Google has an official policy of requiring customers that pay for ads matching abortion-related search terms to label their ads to state whether or not they provide abortions, but the report documents failures to enforce this policy. The labels themselves are confusing: for example, abortion travel funds have to be labeled as “not providing abortions.”

Google isn’t afraid to ban whole categories of advertising: for example, Google has banned Plan C, a nonprofit that provides information about medication abortions. The company erroneously classes Plan C as an “unauthorized pharmacy.” But Google continues to offer paid disinformation on behalf of forced birth groups that claim there is such a thing as “abortion reversal” (there isn’t — but the “abortion reversal” drug cocktail is potentially lethal).

This is inexcusable, but it’s not unique — and it’s not even that profitable. $10m is a drop in the bucket for a company like Google. When you’re lighting $45b/year on fire just to prevent competition, $10m is chump change. A better way to understand Google’s relationship to paid disinformation can be found by studying Facebook’s own paid disinformation problem.

Facebook has a well-documented problem with paid political disinformation — unambiguous, illegal materials, like paid notices advising people to remember to vote on November 6th (when election day falls on November 5th). The company eventually promised to put political ads in a repository where they could be inspected by all parties to track its progress in blocking paid disinformation.

Facebook did a terrible job at this, with huge slices of its political ads never landing in its transparency portal. We know this because independent researchers at NYU’s engineering school built an independent, crowdsourced tracker called Ad Observer, which scraped all the ads volunteers saw and uploaded them to a portal called Ad Observatory.

Facebook viciously attacked the NYU project, falsely smearing it as a privacy risk (the plugin was open source and was independently audited by Mozilla researchers, who confirmed that it didn’t collect any personal information). When that didn’t work, they sent a stream of legal threats, claiming that NYU was trafficking in a “circumvention device” as defined by Section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, a felony carrying a five-year prison sentence and a $500k fine — for a first offense.

Eventually, NYU folded the project. Facebook, meanwhile, has fired or reassigned most of the staff who work on political ad transparency:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/08/06/get-you-coming-and-going/#potemkin-research-program

What are we to make of this? Facebook claims that it doesn’t need or want political ad revenue, which are a drop in the bucket and cause all kinds of headaches. That’s likely true — but Facebook’s aversion to blocking political ads doesn’t extend to spending a lot of money to keep paid political disinfo off the platform.

The company could turn up the sensitivity on its blocking algorithm, which would generate more false positives, in which nonpolitical ads are misidentified and have to be reviewed by humans. This is expensive, and it’s an expense Facebook can avoid if it can suppress information about its failures to block paid political disinformation. It’s cheaper to silence critics than it is to address their criticism.

I don’t think Google gives a shit about the $10m it gets from predatory fake abortion clinics. But I think the company believes that the PR trouble it would get into for blocking them — and the expense it would incur in trying to catch and block fake abortion clinic ads — are real liabilities. In other words, it’s not about the $10m it would lose by blocking the ads — Google wants to avoid the political heat it would take from forced birth fanatics and cost of the human reviewers who would have to double-check rejected ads.

In other words, Google doesn’t abet fraudulent abortion clinics because they share the depraved sadism of the people who run these clinics. Rather, Google teams up with these sadists out of cowardice and greed.

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this thread to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/06/15/paid-medical-disinformation/#crisis-pregnancy-centers

[Image ID: A ruined streetscene. Atop a pile of rubble sits a dilapidated shack. In front of the shack is a letterboard with the word ABORTIONS set off-center and crooked. In the foreground is a carny barker at a podium, gesturing at the sign and the shack. The barker's head and face have been replaced with the Google logo. Within the barker's podium is a heap of US$100 bills.]

Image: Flying Logos (modified) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Over_$1,000,000_dollars_in_USD_$100_bill_stacks.png

CC BY-SA 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

In two 5-1 opinions, the court built on a 2019 decision in which it said the state’s Constitution protects abortion rights and that lawmakers seeking to restrict abortion must meet a high “strict scrutiny” test. The decisions cement Kansas' role as a key abortion access point for patients across the broader region.

The Kansas Supreme Court struck down two laws restricting abortion on Friday, affirming its prior interpretation that ending a pregnancy remains a constitutionally protected right in Kansas.

In two 5-1 opinions, the court built on a 2019 decision in which it said the state’s Constitution protects abortion rights and lawmakers seeking to restrict abortion must meet a high “strict scrutiny” test. When Republican lawmakers asked voters, in 2022, to amend the constitution to stipulate that it does not protect abortion rights, Kansans overwhelmingly declined to do so.

“We stand by our conclusion that section 1 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights protects a fundamental right to personal autonomy, which includes a pregnant person’s right to terminate a pregnancy,” wrote Justice Eric Rosen in one of the majority opinions.

A decision against abortion providers would have been monumental, not only for Kansans but for the thousands of women across the region who now travel to Kansas each year to get abortions that have been banned in their home states. A large majority of patients at Kansas abortion clinics now come from Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas and farther afield.

The court’s majority upheld lower court rulings that two laws restricting abortion — passed several years ago by Republican-controlled Kansas Legislature — were unconstitutional. One law, passed in 2015, banned an abortion method frequently used in second-trimester abortions called ‘dilation and evacuation.’ The second law, passed in 2011, imposed licensure restrictions on doctors who provide abortions that exceeded those imposed on other medical providers.

Neither law had been in effect because of permanent injunctions by lower courts.

In his decision striking down the dilation and evacuation ban, Rosen wrote that the State of Kansas does have a compelling interest in “promoting respect for the value and dignity of human life, born or unborn” but said that the law is not narrowly tailored to that interest.

The clinic restrictions “do not survive strict scrutiny and are constitutionally infirm,” Justice Standridge concluded in the second majority opinion.

The decisions were both 5-1, with Justice Caleb Stegall — the only justice to dissent from the 2019 decision — dissenting and Justice Keynen Wall not participating in the decision.

Stegall wrote that he dissented from the Friday opinions for the same reasons he dissented in 2019.

“The majority’s imagined section 1 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights bears no resemblance at all — in either law or history — to the actual text and original public meaning of section 1.”

Stegall also criticized the majority’s use of the term “pregnant person” instead of “women.”

“I cannot help but notice that pregnant women have been quietly — decisively — evicted from this court’s abortion jurisprudence,” he wrote.

The Center for Reproductive Rights represented the Kansas doctors who challenged the laws. Nancy Northup, the organization’s president and CEO, commended the court’s opinions.

“This is an immense victory for the health, safety, and dignity of people in Kansas and the entire Midwestern region, where millions have been cut off from abortion access,” Northup said in a news release. “We will continue our fight to ensure Kansans can access the essential healthcare they need in their home state.”

Kansans for Life, the state’s leading anti-abortion organization, rebuked the decisions.

“Adding insult to injury, extremely liberal judges of the Kansas Supreme Court have now overturned basic health and safety standards for abortion facilities,” KFL spokesperson Danielle Underwood said in a press release.

“It hurts to say, ‘we told you so,’ to the many Kansans who were misled by the abortion industry’s assurances that it would still be ‘heavily regulated’ in our state if voters rejected the 2022 amendment,” Underwood added.

Several new abortion laws took effect in Kansas earlier this week, but one of them — a law requiring doctors to ask patients getting abortions their reason for doing so — is being challenged in court. A Johnson County judge said Monday that doctors could add the law to a larger lawsuit they brought against a handful of older state abortion restrictions, including a 24-hour waiting period. The judge agreed to temporarily block the older laws while the case proceeds.

The Kansas Department of Health and Environment told providers it will “not, for now” enforce the abortion reasons law, providers said Monday. The health department has not responded to requests seeking to confirm that.

[fashionlandscapeblog]

Politics in the U.S. have shifted sooo much to the right that now there are only two competing political spectrums:

The far right drawing bills that would allow kids/ teenagers to work longer hours and perform some currently banned tasks, cutting taxes on the super rich (increasing them on the poor), criminalizing abortion (some states even want to implement the death sentence to women who have abortions), criminalizing trans people (by banning drag shows, or anything that 'sexualizes' children, without of course fobidding beauty competitions in little girls in bikinis), banning any books that talk about racism, trans people or homosexuality from schools, etc. There are people even talking about banning women's rights to vote.

Versus the center right, a.k.a. Democrats which are even more right than the CDU, which is Germany's center right party that widely endorses universal health care and many other social issues that the Democratic party rarely even talks about or would even dream in supporting ("Like why should I pay for other's peoples' wellbeing").

The center left, i.e. Bernie Sanders, is out of the panorama, since it is considered far left even by the Democrats in the U.S. of A. Bernie Sanders is by no means, a socialist. He'd be an average SPD member, which is Germany's current ruling center left party.

While the Evangelical right of the U.S. does not represent the majority, they have so much power, that they managed to succeed in drawing all these antisocial legislations. It's not only a democracy question, but the truly worrying thing is that they can be considered the Western Hemisphere's equivalent of the Taliban.

[pipperdoo]

Friendly PSA

Support your local pro-life crisis pregnancy center. They offer counseling services, parenting classes, referrals for pre/peri/post natal care, free ultrasounds, and free resources such as formula and diapers. Their services extend to the fathers involved as well. Some even offer counseling for those healing from past abortions. With abolition of abortion prayerfully drawing closer these facilities will need your help to be prepared for the shift. So support your local pregnancy center!

[glitter-soda]

Something I genuinely wonder is why a lot of trans activists seem to have a problem with using “no uterus, no opinion” as an abortion slogan. It’s perfectly inclusive of women, trans men, and female enbies, just like y’all want. Sooo what’s the issue?