PA Mom gets prison for getting daughter abortion
 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...0H10IR20140906

Sigh. Nearest clinic was over 70 miles away. And yet that's not considered "undue burden"? You go, my home state. Boo.

utterly ridiculous.

Strange, I travelled over 70 miles each way this Saturday to attend an afternoon at the races and never once considered it an 'undue burden'.

Will her Obamacare fine at the end of the year, you know for not having insurance, be an undue burden? Or is two hours on the road more of a burden than a $200 fine assuming she makes 20K/year.

Come to think of it I have to drive almost 60 miles for a decent pizza. How many times do you need a decent pizza as opposed to an abortion?

I'm finally a victim!!!:rolleyes:

I was unaware you were a single mom working as an underpaid home health care worker, Dell. Or that you have all kinds of inside info on the condition of her car and the amount of disposable income she has available for gas. Or what her days off are, as most clinics do not operate on the weekends and home health care workers seldom get paid vacation days as they aren't unionized.

This is a classic example of inability to view another's circumstances through any other lens than one's own.

This is the problem with the GOP and abortion- they are happy to restrict it because they are well aware the rich and middle class will always be able to get abortions when desired. Take a three-day trip to another state, or even fly to Europe if they have to. It's, as always, the poor that will suffer for the rich's ideas of morality.

This woman pled guilty she didn't go to trial. Pretty sure she was advised that proceeding to trial and pleading 'undue burden' for having to drive 70 miles or something similar was a longshot. Especially when she'd undoubtedly have to explain why she had no Obamacare or DPW benefits.

https://ujsportal.pacourts.us/docket...R-0000026-2014

And you're right I don't have any inside info on the car etc. but you don't have any inside info on friends, family, neighbors etc. who could have arranged a ride.

What I do know is had the mother/daughter inquired with PP of Harrisburg they would have read Not such a burden when you really think about it.

A) Again, 72 miles away.
B) You clearly don't know what the morning after pill is, or how it works.

And, by the way, the ACA doesn't cover abortion. No federal monies go towards paying for abortion, despite what you may read on RedState.

I read this piece in the wake of Dr. Tiller's assassination. It is equally parts infuriating and powerful. Thanks for posting the link; it's a very good one to get out there.

ETA: I reread the article again. Here's my favorite anecdote from it:

"In 1973, after Roe v. Wade, abortion became legal but had to be performed in a hospital. That of course was changed later. For the first 'legal abortion day' I had scheduled five procedures. While scrubbing between cases, I was accosted by the Chief of the OB/Gyn service. He asked me, 'How many children are you going to kill today?' My response, out of anger, was a familiar vulgar retort. About three months later, this born-again Christian called me to explain that he was against abortion but his daughter was only a junior in high school and was too young to have a baby and he was also afraid that if she did have a baby she would not want to put it up for adoption. I told him he did not need to explain the situation to me. 'All I need to know', I said, 'is that SHE wants an abortion.' Two years later I performed a second abortion on her during her college break. She thanked me and pleaded, 'Please don't tell my dad, he is still anti-abortion.'" (Physician, Washington State)

Doesn't Federal money go to PP or is it separated like the Fed's do to SS contributions and in a lockbox?

:tro::tro::tro:

Two abortions and she's a hero....

BTW like a burp and or a fart, best thing is to keep it to yourself!

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/04/planned-parenthood/

This will explain all to you. Yes, PP does get grants, but no Federal money can go to programs providing abortion. It's been that way since the 1970s; I don't understand why many GOP pols continue to lie about that and what PP does (see "not intended to be a factual statement," at the link).

Lets agree to disagree.

I don't think driving 74 miles to get a free abortion is an undue burden. It's not like the daughter was immaculately inseminated and isn't at fault. Perhaps had the mother thought about the 74 mile drive months earlier she could have driven her daughter down for some free contraception and avoided the mental scarring the daughter will now undoubtedly go through provided she has a conscience. Or had she followed the law and gotten her some Obamacare she would have been able to take her daughter to a local provider. But no, nowadays everyone's a victim.

On another note the City of Chicago still does not have a gun store. Is it an undue burden on law abiding citizens to force them to travel outside the city? Or is a free abortion more of a right than the right to bear arms even though one doesn't get the gun for free?

Where on earth do you get the idea an abortion would be provided for free?

When the article stated she had no insurance so couldn't get it done at a local hospital I thought it likely she was headed to Planned Parenthood in Harrisburg. I also presumed it likely the teen had no or very little income and would qualify for a 'free' procedure. Free as in paid for by someone else. Here locally a woman can qualify if yearly income is less than $17K and not only get contraception coverage but also general gyno care including checkups.

Get pregnant and want to keep the baby Planned Parenthood is out and the State takes over and not only is all healthcare 'free' they actually pay the teen mother money, give her and her baby 'free' or subsidized housing, 'free' food and a cell phone with 'free' 300 messages/month. Free as in paid for by someone else.

Incidentally that someone else is the taxpayer who has the undue burden of paying taxes on virtually anything everything he/she does or purchases. And now that same taxpayer has the undue burden of paying for illegals who are invading for the 'free' shiat we're giving away.

I can't help but wonder if the daughter had needed her tonsils out whether the mother would have googled tonsillectomy, ordered some tools and drugs on the internet and gone to work as a surgeon?

I need to see links with proof that a woman making under $17k qualifies for "free" abortions at clinics in Illinois. Otherwise you're just making that up.

According to the PP webpage, cost ranges from $300 to $1700 for a first-trimester abortion in a clinic, and will be more expensive in a hospital.

In PA, in addition to the cost of transportation to a clinic over an hour's drive away, there is also a mandatory 24 hour waiting period, which means the mother is out two days of work, and must make the almost 150 mile round trip to Harrisburg twice.

If the daughter needed a tonsillectomy it's entirely possible Medicaid would have covered the procedure. But, as it was an abortion that was needed, there were no state funds available.

Here's the thing- it was incredibly irresponsible for the mother to administer those drugs without a doctor. But that's what is going to happen as reproductive rights continue to get slashed in this nation. Women will do what they did before it was legal; they will get abortions illegally, or mutilate themselves in an attempt to terminate the pregnancy. And some will die. And since the majority of women who get abortions already have at least one child, that will mean more minor children that will become wards of the state, and your tax dollars can pay for them.

Frankly, you're a man, and there's just no way for you comprehend the sheer scale of desperation experienced by a woman who is pregnant and does not want to be. It is outside your capability to experience, so you either can't comprehend, or refuse to comprehend that women will kill themselves in an effort to terminate a pregnancy. Safe, legal and inexpensive access to abortion is a public health necessity. Along, of course, with mandatory birth control education and cheap (preferably free) access to birth control for both men and women.

And of course, as this woman is being sent to jail, her daughter is now I imagine going to foster care, which is also going to cost the taxpayer.

It's not at clinics but at PP in Janesville WI not IL. I serve as a sort of counselor, tax preparer, legal consultant etc. etc. for a bunch of clueless waitresses at a local restaurant so not 'just making it up' a la RIOT.

According to PP's Western PA Webpage

Title X program PPWP provides free services for teens ages17 and under. For women and men over age 17, fees for services are based on your household income and may be free. - See more at: http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pla....3sIUUoqQ.dpuf


Hey you're preaching to the choir even though I am a man and can't comprehend what pregnant women are going through. I realize it's in society's, the woman who is pregnant and doesn't want to be, the woman not pregnant and not wanting to be and the taxpayer's interest and benefit to terminate and prevent any and all unwanted pregnancies and especially for pregnancies that will likely produce yet more societal dependents.

The money spent terminating a pregnancy equals less than two months of support money likely needed for years. Too bad the lifers seem to have more political clout than the fiscally conservative in twisting the arm of the GOP to remain anti-abortion.

when texas added their new rules, supposedly to make abortions 'safer', they've actually made it less so. there's a lot of women that have done, or will do exactly what the PA mother did. emergency room rates have gone up in the last few months due to people taking it upon themself to do what they used to be able to do under a doctors care.
thankfully judges have been able to quash some of these laws in texas and other states-but will it stand up on appeal?

You still haven't provided info that they provide "free" abortions. Don't get me wrong; I'm very glad if they do have the sort of private financing that enables them to help women in trouble, but state and federal monies can't cover the cost, except in some very limited circumstances, so most elective abortions must be paid for by the woman.

Believe me, I'm really, really, really glad we're on the same side in terms of women's reproductive rights. There are a gajillion and one reasons women become accidentally pregnant, and as a society we need to lay off the slut shaming (one of the worst I know personally was a friend whose husband, believing outdated information about the IUD, pushed her to get hers removed and then, when she, surprise, got pregnant, pushed her into an abortion because he didn't want kids. She divorced him eventually, but it took some time for her to get out of the relationship).

And yes, I would also be happy if the GOP would stand up to the Religious Right on this one. I an't holding my breath, though. I may be remembering wrong, but I don't think the current GOP plank includes any sort of exceptions in its stance against abortion. Any at all.

Sorry but they (Janesville WI PP) obviously don't advertise their free abortion services on the web and as I stated before once a pregnant woman decides she's going through with a pregnancy she is 'discharged' from PP and referred to BadgerCare. I remember reading of a woman Dr. from Madison coming down twice a week to provide abortion services out of PP's Janesville clinic (for what patients could afford) after GM closed their plant a few years back but not sure if that continues.

BTW I think the platform of the GOP being fiscally conservative is nothing more than words, a paper tiger. Similar to libs platform of being for the average Joe while sneaking in a million average Jose's.

Well, understandable they wouldn't advertise, seeing as how it's just begging for crazy people to show up to threaten and harass women and shoot doctors. But BadgerCare clearly doesn't cover abortions, as you said they're sending women there for prenatal care (I assume because it would be cheaper than continuing with PP. PP is pretty good about trying to keep costs as low for their clientele as they can).

I think the immigration situation is a lot more complicated than "keep 'em out" as our economy takes advantage of immigrant labor for a lot of things. Speaking of the GOP, it's a bit ironic, but Ayn Rand, one of the beloveds of the Right, was ardently in favor of an open door policy on immigration, having been an immigrant herself. She didn't get her citizenship until she married an American.