Rev. Haffner Celebrates Roe

Today is the 40th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s 7-2 decision in favor of Roe, in the important abortion case versus Wade.

Two days ago, Rev. Debra Haffner — community minister with Westport’s Unitarian Church, and president and CEO of the Westport-based Religious Institute (a national multifaith organization advocating for sexual health, education and justice) –celebrated the event.

Rev. Debra Haffner

Rev. Debra Haffner

She led the litany at a special service at Washington’s First Congregational United Church of Christ. Attendees included elected officials and their staffs who have worked tirelessly in the area of abortion rights. The sponsor was the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice. Organizations represented included Catholics for Choice, and the National Latino Roundtable.

“We held these men and women in our prayers for their courageous support of reproductive justice,” Rev. Haffner said.

She called abortion “a moral decision that should be left to a woman, her family, her doctor and her faith.”

Rev. Haffner said the service was “beautiful. There was wonderful music, plenty of enthusiasm, a rabbi and several Christian ministers.”

One highlight: an award given to an African-American doctor. For years, he was the only abortion provider in the state of Mississippi.

But, Rev. Haffner says, the battle for reproductive rights is not yet over.

“I was 18 — a freshman at Wesleyan — when I learned that Roe v. Wade had been decided.

“I’m now 58, and post-menopausal. I never could have imagined that we’d still be fighting this fight.”

171 responses to “Rev. Haffner Celebrates Roe

  1. Bobbie Herman

    Keep fighting the good fight, Debra. You are an amazing woman!

  2. Cindy Plummer

    I find it difficult to ‘celebrate’ the taking of the most innocent of lives.

    • I agree. It’s clear that The decision of The Court is right but abortion certainly is not something to be celebrated. It isn’t one of those sorts of victories you clink glasses to.

      • Peter Schwartz

        The celebration is that women have the right to control their own destiny and are free to make their own decision.

        • I get that but it is still one of those legislative victories that while necessary unfortunately nobody gets to feel great about.

          • Peter Schwartz

            Only if you think being pro-choice necessitates abortion and banning abortion eliminates it. This is a piece of this issue people have a hard time keeping in mind. Deciding to keep a child is also pro-choice. Deciding not to keep a child is also pro-choice. The fact is deciding to get pregnant is a choice and deciding to end a pregnancy is a choice.

            • Yes, I realize that Roe-law regards individual ‘choice’ and that in forming that legal decision and ensuing legislation and regulations that personal choice, the right to choose, the quality of life/self-determination of the chooser was weighed as more important than the life of a person if they are at the stage of ‘fetus’. I am actually pro-choice but again it’s one of those pieces of legislation that isn’t in my mind ‘celebratory’. Nobody ‘wins’ in the situation that the Roe related legislation was created for. You would have to be one very cold hearted person to applaud the scenarios that invoke Roe law. Appreciative that it’s there but ‘celebrating’ it doesn’t seem right.

          • Peter Schwartz

            This is while the bumper sticker–It’s a child, not a choice–never made sense to me. Unless you’ve gotten pregnant by accident, you’ve made the choice to have a child. God or the stork or Holy Spirit didn’t come down and effectuate the deed.

          • Peter Schwartz

            What you should feel bad about are the conditions that lead women to feel they need an abortion. They’ve always had abortions, and the incidence goes up and down. Roe just meant it was much, much safer to have an abortion when a woman felt she needed one. Lives were saved. THAT should be celebrated.

        • What we are really celebrating in the “right” of a pregnant, unwed, 16 year-old to have her baby’s brains sucked out at an abortion mill without her parent’s consent and at taxpayer expense.

          • Peter Schwartz

            How is it at taxpayer’s expense? We’re not going to be treated to the tired and false tirade about Planned Parenthood, are we?

            • In CA parental consent is not required. There are other states where that is the case as well.

              Seven states and the District of Columbia fully fund abortions by legislative decision. Since 1990 the California Legislature put California in this group by voting to fund abortion on demand. (AK, CA, HI, MD, NY, OR, WA)

              • Peter Schwartz

                Okay…in those states. And in those states, the taxpayers voted to fund abortion. Good on them. Do you live there, or do you live in CT?

                • I made the case. Nice retreat on your part.

                  • Peter Schwartz

                    The case you made was…in THOSE states, which wasn’t your original statement. In fact, if you live in CT and most other states, your statement is wrong–according to your own information.

                    Normally, the case against choice is taken to the states because, presumably, they are “closer to the people.” Of course, when “the people” are pro-choice, suddenly, the anti-choicers don’t like the people so much.

                    • I said there were taxpayer funded abortions. Nice try at the old lefty two-step.

                    • Peter Schwartz

                      Here is what you said, in full:

                      “What we are really celebrating in the “right” of a pregnant, unwed, 16 year-old to have her baby’s brains sucked out at an abortion mill without her parent’s consent and at taxpayer expense.”

                      You say that this “celebration” of RvW is “really” a celebration of unwed 16 year olds blah, blah, blah…at taxpayer’s expense. And yet, as you yourself point out, this taxpayer support applies only in a few states and therefore cannot apply to RvW which, as we all know, applies nationwide.

                      You overlook, of course, that taxpayers in THOSE states WANT to support abortions financially.

                    • Taxpayers are paying for abortions; you admit as much. You clearly have no understanding of Roe, but you blather on.

                    • Peter Schwartz

                      Yes, I admitted that taxpayers pay for abortions in certain states. However, in MOST states, they do not. So your assertion is more wrong than right. Moreover, there is nothing wrong with taxpayers deciding that they are going to pay for abortions.

                    • Taxpayers do not “decide” to pay for abortions. You are just flailing around. Voters do not vote to pay for abortions or not. My statement is fully correct; taxpayers pay for abortions.

                    • Peter Schwartz

                      Of course, they do. Taxpayers make decisions through their representatives. That is how our system of government works. We don’t have plebiscites on every decision. Good grief. Some states decide to fund abortions and some don’t. Moreover, taxpayers petition their state and local governments if they don’t like a decision their representatives have made. They say, “We don’t want to pay for abortions.” Or the opposite. But at the national level…at the level of RvW of which we’ve been speaking…there is nothing in the SCOTUS decision that requires or ordains or encourages states to pay for abortions. Some do; some don’t based on the views of the taxpayers.

                    • Taxpayers do not make decisions through their representatives. The representatives make decisions. In any event, you have not contradicted my original position; taxpayers are paying for abortions.

      • Peter Schwartz

        The thing that should be celebrated is the gift it gave women. Which was NOT the “gift” of abortion.

  3. Thank you for this post about Rev. Debra Haffner and the Religious Institute which she leads. As she says, it’s unbelievable that we are still fighting this battle today.

  4. It’s more unbelievable that women would be okay with killing innocent lives. Especially after the second and third trimester. How sick.

    • Assuming from your name that you are not a woman and have therefore never been pregnant, I really don’t see how you feel you have the right to make such broad statements.

      • Do you prefer ad hominem arguments?

      • As a retired physician who used to deliver babies, I feel I do have the background to make “such broad” statements.

        • JIm – Obviously I should have signed my name, so as not to get confused with the multiple posts under “anonymous”…
          My “broad statements” comment earlier was more directed to you singling out women – there a plenty of men who agree with abortion as well.
          And since you went there by sharing your profession – in regards to “how sick” a woman must be to have an abortion in her second and third trimester- Considering your background as a physician, I would have imagined that you would have a better understanding of the complexities/complications that can arrise during a pregnancy. A late term abortion is a VERY painful procedure, emotionally and physically, and it is a decision that is not entered into lightly – for the woman, or the doctor(because of restrictions in Roe v. Wade.)
          Not everyone having abortions is “sick” or reckless or poor, or whatever other preconceived notion you can come up with. There are many responsible women out there who desperately want children and make this difficult choice for serious health reasons. When making broad statements, you might consider the broad audience that you are speaking to….chances are, the sick, reckless and poor aren’t reading your post anyway.

    • Babette d'Yveine

      It’s too bad people like you aren’t as concerned with babies after they’re born than before.

      • Peter Schwartz

        Oh now Babette, we don’t know that the good doctor isn’t concerned with people after they’re born. That’s a bit rash, n’est-ce pas?

      • Wow, really? Sophomoric or moronic? I really can’t decide. Your statement is ridiculous.

        Life is precious from the moment of conception until natural death. Do you really think that someone who regards the unborn so resulutley would actually dismiss the concerns of that child after birth?

        If you’re going to put up your dukes and fight for something, don’t throw eggs instead. Make sense or be quiet.

        • Babette d'Yveine

          In 2010, 16.4 million children, or 22.0 percent lived in poverty. If it weren’t for the Affordable Health Care Act, they wouldn’t have any health coverage at all. Education has been cut. Food stamps have been cut. And the Teabaggers are trying to cut these programs even further. Those who make the most noise about “killing babies” seem to have no concern for them after they’re born. Do you?

          And, for your information, I’ll never be quiet! Not while there’s any form of injustice on this Earth.

          • Peter Schwartz

            You make good points. Once you slide through the vaginal canal, you’re on your own.

          • Those children have health insurance, amaybe, but they do not have healthcare. The ACA does not provide healthcare. Nice try at outrage though.

            • Peter Schwartz

              They have “health insurance a-maybe, but they do not have healthcare.” Care to tell us what you’re talking about in English. English is Babette’s second language, but she sounds like a native speaker compared to you.

              • Babette d'Yveine

                Thanks, Peter, but English is the only language I’ve ever spoken. Other than Pig Latin, that is.

              • The ACA does not increase the supply of healthcare. What can you not understand? The ACA does not cover all poor children. Still having trouble keeping up?

                • Peter Schwartz

                  Apparently, you’re not only a coward hiding behind that oh-so-clever handle, but you don’t get that health care costs money. In most cases, you need insurance to buy it in any appreciable amount. People who don’t have insurance or have poor insurance tend to lack access to health care. Conversely, once you have coverage, you have access to health care in general. With ACA, MORE people have access to health care. That’s the point.

                  • You are a bit dim; you do not understand the difference between healthcare and health insurance. There is NO assurance anyone will have access to health care just because they have health insurance. ACA creates more access to health insurance; not healthcare. It is a pity you can’t keep up.

                    • Peter Schwartz

                      There is no guarantee you can find a doctor or hospital once your have insurance. there is no guarantee you can find a doctor without health insurance. So what? But if you have insurance, your opportunity to get health care is FAR FAR FAR better than if you didn’t have insurance. It’s a big step toward the goal. For most people, getting coverage MEANS they will be able to get health care. OTOH, without insurance, your chances of getting health care go down unless you can pay for it out of pocket.

                      Most people in America get the relationship between being covered and getting health care.

                    • Once again you cannot grasp the essential difference between healthcare and health insurance. The ACA is a fraud. It does nothing to increase the supply of healthcare.

                    • Peter Schwartz

                      Of course, I do. You’re simply caught up in this idee fixe that coverage has nothing to do with the supply of health care. Of course it does. That’s WHY people WANT coverage…IN ORDER to buy health care. What else? You think they buy insurance to display in their living rooms? Can’t tell whether you’re a left-wing idiot or a right-wing idiot, but there is a DEFINITE relationship between being covered and having access to health care. That’s WHY people WANT coverage and are willing to PAY for it. If it didn’t help them get health care, they wouldn’t buy it.

                    • You are being obtuse; the ACA does nothing to increase the supply of healthcare or assure that people have access to healthcare. The realtionship between health insurance and healthcare is dynamic; there is no guarantee it will remain as it has in the past.

                    • Show us where in the ACA there is guaranteed access to healthcare. The supply of healthcare may decrease or increase, but there is not guaranteed access to healthcare.

                    • Peter Schwartz

                      I did not say “guarantee.” You did.

                    • You really are a simpleton. I did not say that you said “guarantee.” Just face it; your grasp of the facts is tenuous at best.

                • Peter Schwartz

                  Here’s your statement: “Those children have health insurance, amaybe, but they do not have healthcare.” In addition to all your other idiotic statements, you’ve failed to show that these kids “do not have health care” or won’t have access to health care once they’re covered.

                  ACA isn’t targeted so much to increasing the number of doctors–though there are provision in the bill that do that. But for people who’ve not had coverage, getting coverage will in most cases mean that they now have access to health care in a way they didn’t before.

  5. Abortion is murder. Plain and simple. God help us all.

    • Bobbie Herman

      Don’t approve of abortion? Don’t have one.

      • Too bad that the 50,000,000 lives that have been snuffed out since Roe v Wade will never have that option.

        • Peter Schwartz

          Fortunately, Jose was not one of them. Give him my regards, please.

          • Peter Shcwartz (Mazel Tov)

            I’m going to go out on a limb here and guess that Jose — a good Christian with a conscience — would rather not have your regards.

        • Susan, Roe v Wade wasn’t intended to stop abortions, just illegal ones.
          Those often killed both the fetus and the mother. A woman’s choice concerning her body and health is sacred. I hope your freedom of choice is never taken from you.

  6. This is where Haffner and her pro-abortion cabal are headed; after -birth abortion. The killing of children.

    “Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus’ health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.”

  7. Other Perspectives

    Abortion is not an issue that can be “solved” by us mortals because there are so many unknown variables.

    Consider that some who are NOT AGAINST abortion [different than being FOR] believe:

    In reincarnation [25% of USA], that the aborted soul will return;

    That LIFE ON THIS PLANE begins with the first breath IN, and ends with the last breath OUT; which is why in primitive societies, the midwife will prevent a deformed fetus from taking a first breath. This is an important distinction from “life begins at conception.” Different planes of existence.

    That the act of love that produces a child happens on both the physical and spiritual planes and therefore, if there is no “spiritual consent” as in the case of rape or incest, then there was NO SPIRITUAL CONTRACT, the soul is “not properly formed” and should be returned.

    That the host [the mother] is the sole determinator of any outcome;

    That the soul knew of the potential or actual abortion and agreed to proceed despite that knowledge.

    That God or Karma will deal with the motives of the host, and that all others should remain silent, lest they invite Karma.

    Anyway, somethings to think about…wish I had the answers to please everyone…but unlikely on the FAB 06880 🙂

  8. Peter Schwartz

    Prepare for the sh*t storm, Dan. I suggest you wear foul weather gear. Full sou’wester with books and hat.

  9. Peter Schwartz

    Jim writes: “Especially after the second and third trimester. How sick.” Are they less innocent before the second and third trimester?

    • No. But I believe life begins in the biological sense during the second trimester. There will always be differing opinions on this.

      • Peter Schwartz

        In what sense in the “biological sense”? Not following you. Gastrulation?

      • Jim, now that you can see a baby’s heartbeat on a sonagram just a few weeks after conception, you still think life begins during the second trimester? Just asking. I can remember very clearly the scientific fact back then, of there not being a heartbeat as one of the reasons abortions were ever considered for legality.

        • Peter Schwartz

          This is a silly argument. What did anyone think? That there was this dead lump that suddenly came to life on such a such date? That there were chickens growing inside them that then magically became humans? My mother had a heartbeat, too, when she was in all other respects dead. A heart beat doesn’t a human being.

          • Peter? That’s one of the main arguments used in passing Roe.. the heartbeat.. so yeah.. it may have been silly. We don’t use the term “quickening” anymore either because there isn’t a day when life happens, unless it’s the first day. Cell replication, living cells.. that are human.. the heart is one of the first things that develops. I think it’s the 18th day after conception. It looks like a tiny light going on and off. Since Roe passed, the humanity of the fetus has become more apparent, not less.

            • Peter Schwartz

              Mary, all of the cut-offs are somewhat arbitrary and all of them have “problems.” I have a bigger problem with things like Bush deciding to bomb the shit out of innocent woman and children and lying about war being the last resort–when it was not–than with aborting a two-cell mass.

              The truth is, I do care more about a child who’s had a life, who has brothers and sisters he knows, who has a family he knows and who knows him than I do about two cells with or without a heart beat or some brain waves.

              The logic of the pro-life position, however, is that we must treat these two as equal. Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of those who do have no problem blowing the shit out of that child with a family–for all kinds of phony bumper sticker reasons like “fighting ’em there so we don’t have to fight ’em here” and “what price freedom.” Some may wring their hands about it and some may be happy as hell to be Christian soldiers kickin’ butt and taking names, which is even more repellent.

              Again, the pro-choice position is fully consistent with being opposed to abortion and a world 100% free of abortions. The pro-war position, however, is incompatible with the pro-peace position except in the hands of phonies.

  10. Bobbie Herman

    If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.

  11. Peter Schwartz

    Doug, I predict that we hit 450 comments with this one. Please add more server capacity, pronto. And the Anonymae are reproducing at an alarming rate. If you’re going to be “anonymous,” at least make up a name that distinguishes you. Say, Don Quixote or Rocinante or Dulcinea. And then stick with it. “Peter Schwartz” is my pseudonym and I never deviate from it.

    • Peter Shcwartz (Mazel Tov)

      Yeah. You definitely don’t. Here is your Facebook page to prove it. You sadistic progressive:

      Get a job. Or a life. Whichever you prefer.

      • Peter Schwartz

        That is my FB page. Look around if you want (or not). I have nothing to hide. Unlike you, I’m not a coward, nor a cowardly c*ke.

        • Peter Shcwartz (Mazel Tov)

          I fight for our people. You and I… we share the same bloodline. Mazel Tov my brother! Embrace me and my people, please!

          • The phony Peter mocks the honest one who posts his own name. Why
            do I get the sense of a little anti semitism in tthe air?

            • Have you decoded c*ke? Please fill us in.

            • Want run that by us again Gary?

              “Peter Schwartz” is my pseudonym and I never deviate from it.

              • Peter Schwartz

                Spoken like a charter buffoon of Assholes Anonymous. Hahahaha. From now on, I’m only going to talk to members of Assholes Anonymous on months beginning with the letter “A.”

                • I think Mr. Mazel Tof’s characterization of you was accurate. The truth must have hurt.

          • Peter Schwartz

            I fight for people, some of whom happen to be Jewish. You are clearly a coward because you refuse to show your face. That’s not a fighter; that’s a faker. A faux Jew. Maybe in a few years, medicine will have perfected a soul transplant and you can get one under the ACA. Joe Lieberman had a little-known provision put in so that phony Jews might one day get to feel what it means to be a human being. Finishing God’s work and all that.

  12. Estelle T. Margolis

    I applaude you, Reverend Haffner. We are blessed to have you in our town.

    • For the children

      And if abortion were still illegal, Estelle would shoot ’em dead with her Walmart BB gun.
      But seriously, it is amazing just a month ago everyone was devastated by the horrific tragedy in Newtown and calling for the ban of guns and to repeal the 2nd amendment.
      Now, we are celebrating, cheering on and congratulating those who advocate killing little babies.
      Yet, they think anyone opposed to abortion is extreme.

      • Peter Schwartz

        No there are not. No they don’t. Opposition to abortion is fine. Outlawing it is not.

  13. Rev. Debra W. Haffner

    Thank you for the supportive comments. I want to be clear that I am not “celebrating” abortion. Abortion is always a complex moral decision, and the thousands of women I have counseled have wrestled with what is best for herself and her family. I am pro-woman, pro-family, pro-choice, and pro-faith. For those of you who would like, my blog today explains more about both celebrating and lamenting the 40th anniversary of the Roe decision. See

    • If only the mother can confer the right to life on the child, then that right is not inalienable and Roe stands in direct opposition to the principles of the Founding.

    • Peter Shcwartz (Mazel Tov)

      Are you suggesting that what Dan wrote is inaccurate and not true? In the very first section, he claims that you and your comrades in “faith” (hmm…) celebrated the anniversary.

      Don’t tell me you even considered releasing an ad, right? Like this one?

    • Thank you for clarifying that. Your blog is very thoughtful. Life presents tough choices and the Roe decision and it’s ongoing discussion represents that complexity to the extreme.

      • What did she clarify, exactly? She did not refute the suggestion that they “celebrated.” So nothing has changed..

        • She made it clear that she wasn’t so much ‘celebrating’ in the common sense of the word ‘celebration’ as honouring the date as one of a landmark decision made inspite of the complexities of making such a decision.

          • So then Dan was incorrect and irresponsible of his choosing the word “celebrate?”

            • He could have chosen another word but I think we can all work with what he gave us add that to the follow up from the Rev. herself provided and understand that both he and she well appreciate the complexity and delicacy of Roe Law. Dont be so quick to criticize the few people that are willing to take on responsibility publicly, in this case for writing, editing and publishing news of interest to many of us, that most of us are only willing to comment on.

  14. Nice try rev, abortion is not to be celebrated , period.

  15. Obama crackes me up , wants to protect all Of the children from the evils of guns, etc., if you’re in the womb I guess you’ re on your own. Sad.

    • Peter Schwartz

      Not at all. If your mother wants to keep you, she can and most do. No problem. Has nothing to do with Obama.

    • For the children

      Actually Obama supported a bill that would deny babies born from abortions gone wrong. Yes some children have grown up healthy from badly performed abortions.
      I guess it happens often enough they tried to pass a bill to prevent medical care to these babies.
      Obama and democrats are such caring humanitarians and the republicans are evil.
      Amazing, republicans are called extreme because they oppose killing babies, yet the dems are for it and they’re called pro choice as if that’s a good thing.

  16. Each embryo, each fetus, each baby, each of us, has unique DNA and only one shot at life. I would highly recommend that you listen to the audio of the arguments before the Supreme Court.. you can google it.. It’s a very quick, easy listen. I think it’s on the LIbrary of Congress site. The argument was that Jane Roe would be fired from her job if she remained pregnant (which she did and she is now pro life) It’s now illegal to fire a woman for being pregnant .. and times have changed in many other ways as well. Abortion, I think mistakenly, became a women’s rights issue filled with vitriol.. like equal pay for equal work. But I fail to see how we don’t recognize it as a life or death issue. I see it as a societal failure that over a million babies are aborted each year. Pregnancy prevention is absolutely key. Educate, educate, educate. That will be the day that I celebrate when we finally take back our country from those who allow the saturation of sexual everything everywhere and start teaching self respect, personal responsibility and respect for life at all stages. I have no agenda to make abortion illegal even though I think it’s a bad law based on archaic science and reasoning.. .the bus probably left the station long ago with so many abortions and no one wanting the guilt or the judgement from society..(and I don’t blame them.. we have no right to judge) But that doesn’t mean we can’t find a way to resolve this by making abortion so rare that abortion just becomes something your rarely hear about. I think it’s worth a try.

    • Peter Schwartz

      MG: “Each embryo, each fetus, each baby, each of us, has unique DNA and only one shot at life.”

      This would be a stronger argument if it weren’t made only with respect to fetuses. Unfortunately, when it comes to every other form of human life at every other stage, it becomes a cost-benefit analysis and a matter of choice. Only fetuses, it seems, should be immune from these considerations. And everyone at every stage of life only has one shot at life.

      Drop bombs on women and children? Hey, no one likes war, but…
      Let a third of the population go without health care? Hey, we can’t afford it.
      Allow unrestricted sale of AKXs? Bien sur, it’s our right; only the crazies kill.

      I can’t bow down to St. Fetus especially when its defenders (thought not all) are often so inured to the other institutionalized ways we allow for killing human beings.

      • A third of the population is not without healthcare; at least not here in the USA.

        • Peter Schwartz

          So on top of being a coward, you’re also callous toward actual human beings. But let them be two cells a-humping and you go all wobbly.

          • You must have a learning disability. I was questioning your assertion that one third of the poulation goes without healthcare; you are wrong.

            • Peter Schwartz

              So you’re okay with a quarter or a fifth or…what’s your limit? How many people is acceptable to you to have go without health care?

              • Once again the old lefty two-step. How many people are without healthcare? You have no idea.

                • Peter Schwartz

                  45,000 die a year for lack of health coverage.

                • Peter Schwartz

                  “By Maggie Fox, Health and Science Editor

                  WASHINGTON | Wed Nov 10, 2010 9:33am EST

                  (Reuters) – Nearly 59 million Americans went without health insurance coverage for at least part of 2010, many of them with conditions or diseases that needed treatment, federal health officials said on Tuesday.”

                  With a population of about 311 million, that’s about 25% whose conditions went untreated for at least a part of 2010.

                  • Again, you conflate healthcare and health insurance. This is not tuough stuff, but way above your head. The conclusion reached by Ms. Fox is not supported by the data; she too is a bit dim.

                    • Peter Schwartz

                      Sorry, one sixth. The 45K figures come from a Harvard study. Hahahaha! That’s your new mantra, isn’t it? Healthcare isn’t health insurance. I’m sorry, but the meme doesn’t fly. People buy health insurance BECAUSE it is the only way most people can afford to pay for health care. When they don’t have coverage, they generally don’t get enough health care. That shouldn’t be too hard to get, but somehow you don’t.

                      Maybe you have Aspergers and are consigned to repeat one thing over and over again–as if that would make it so.

                      In addition, you fail to bring facts or figures or logic or a basic understanding of the situation to the discussion to prove your point… whatever it may be.

                      Anyway, from now on, I’m only talking to members of Assholes Anonymous in months that start with “A.” I’ll see you in April. In the meantime, I’ll be doing the lefty two-step and you can do the right wing jerk-off. Maybe all you AAs can get together and do the circle jerk-off. That sounds about even.

                      Dan, one blog I visit has a captcha device which requires that people answer basic factual questions before they can enter. I commend it to you. It might weed out time wasters like the Assholes Anonymae who proliferate here.

                    • You said 1/3 of the population is without healthcare; you lied.

                    • Peter Schwartz

                      AA…go fuck yourself.

                    • You would not pass the test either.

        • Peter Schwartz

          One last point…you fail to support your assertion. Where is the supporting data?

      • Peter Shcwartz (Mazel Tov)

        Peter Schwartz is a sad, pathetic, bitter old man who was tormented as a child in Connecticut. Scorned and betrayed, he retreated to college where he realized his full liberal potential and joined the progressive movement because he finally felt accepted.

        Once out of college, he championed for the legalization of drugs, for the destruction of the private business, and for the innocent slaughtering of children. Now, he is a lonely person filled with rage and scorn towards anonymous posters on a blog and resides in Arlington.

        And perhaps the most ironic part of all is that he clearly supports a political party, and President, who has been responsible for more deadly drone attacks and covert assassinations overseas in the last four years than any President before him. So, I guess it’s actually NOT ironic — he’s supporting people who like to murder in private. They do it behind closed doors, where the doctors rip the babies out of the wombs, and in the secrecy of foreign facades, where Obama’s weekly drone attacks murder dozens of innocent children:

        Yet, here sits Mr. Schwartz. Defending a man who murders children, both literally and figuratively, every single day. Schwartz is seeking some purpose and truth in this miserable world as a political troll on a blog about Westport, Connecticut. Oh…how the mighty have fallen.

        Baruch atah Adonai Eloheinu, melekh ha’olam poke’ach ivrim. Mazel Tov to you and your brothers in Israel, my friend.

      • Babette d'Yveine

        I wonder how many “right-to-lifers” are against capital punishment.

        • Westport numb-nuts!

          You’re a moron!
          Yeah,killing innocent babies is the moral equivalent to a child raping murder?!

        • Why do you wonder that? What difference does that make? Two different issues.

          • Babette d'Yveine

            Ah, words of wisdom from the Sage of Westport. Mary — “life” is life and “killing” is killing.

        • What if we proposed a new law? Abortions are OK, but they must be carried out in the same way we execute our convicted rapists, felons, and murderers. Okay? Cool?

          Bad fetus… BAD! How dare you develop and grow into a person, within my womb. What did I do to deserve this?! 🙁 Was it the unprotected sex??? Not fair!!! NOT fair!!!

    • I just searched for and could not find the original testimony recordings of Roe V. Wade at the LOC (library of congress) so apparently it has been taken down. The LOC changes all the time which could be the reason but I also have found that this issue and the numbers are controlled by Grumbacher Institute which is Planned Parenthood on one side and pro life organizations on the other. You just cannot find reliable, independent information. Look… I think that there should be NO reason both sides can’t get together to reduce these numbers. The only reason not to would be to keep the money stream going. Think about it. No sane person should want to make women feel guilty for their abortions that happened so long ago (or even last week) under our legal system but going forward, wouldn’t it be better if both sides got together to reduce the divisiveness and find ways to prevent pregnancy? You can’t have a society that puts up with constant sexual images, getting worse by the day, and not expect kids to behave sexually younger and younger. The crazies that bomb abortion clinics are one big reason there is a constant divide. This issue has much less to do with what a woman can do with her body.. (which is an inflammatory, rhetorical statement that does not mention the baby) than it does with a society coming together to protect innocent girls, women, fathers and unborn babies through pregnancy prevention. It should be the loudest cry and the most aggressive movement in this country and a cause for celebration.

      • Peter Schwartz

        I can agree with this 100% with only minor quibbles, not worth mentioning. Unfortunately, “reducing abortions,” which has been embraced by liberals and people like Hillary Clinton, is not generally embraced by the so-called pro-life side. It’s insane: We talk freely about reducing murder and gun violence. Only here does the apotheosis of the “Holy Innocent Fetus” make it a life form seemingly superior to all other human life forms and require the perfect stamping out of abortions–and nothing less.

        • Peter…Not a fan of the White House Clintons and Bill’s decry to reduce abortions because to do that you have to disseminate information and put programs in place to educate women and at the same time condemn the constant sexual images which have worsened mightily since that administration and no one seems to notice this. And I disagree, most people who come down on the side of life would love nothing better than to reduce these numbers. Imagine!! Both sides working together to get this done! It’s a lovely thought.. much better than people hating each other.

          • Peter Schwartz

            Well, I think you’ll find that abortions went down under the Clintons. So lives were saved, and if you care about that, it’s something to celebrate, no? Moreover, Hillary made famous the expression Safe, Legal and Rare.

            The movement to overturn RvW is a movement to outlaw abortion, nationally or at the state level. Right now, it’s been done with personhood amendments and the slimy attempt to make abortion inaccessible. MS’s governor is forthright in his desire to outlaw abortion in MS.

            Many of these very large states have only one abortion clinic and that’s on purpose. The woman has to drive many hours to get there. Then she has to weight 48-72 hours, paying for her stay and stay away from work. Then forced to read through much paperwork as if she were a five-year-old incapable of knowing what she’s doing (how could she, poor thing, god bless her) and perhaps go through medically unnecessary procedures.

            I’m sorry, this is coercion pure and simple.

            So yes, everyone working together to reduce the number of abortions would be great. As long as it doesn’t involve coercion, guilt-tripping, getting rid of abortion clinics and the like. If it means changing hearts and minds in an open and free discourse… If it means providing REAL support for women without an agenda steering them in one direction… In short, if it means total respect for women who are making this decision–above respecting their right to make the decision without outside coercion–then I’m for it.

            • Complex issue, yes. I never judge women and have been torn about it since the beginning. Just before you and I went to HS, I think it happened in 66 or 67, a young HS couple somewhere in Fairfield County killed themselves because she was pregnant… so I do understand Roe would have saved them, poor souls. But single women are heros today.. evidence that the world has changed. I agree, Peter.. reduction without coercion.. without guilt, without name calling. I know abortion went down a bit under the Clintons.. but presidents have the bully pulpit and can effect change and he did not do it. Where is the condemnation of sexual images and lyrics bombarding our kids on a grand scale? Do yourself a favor and google some rap lyrics.. this is the culture that our kids are absorbing on a very deep level. (remember Tipper Gore’s plea to the entertainment industry?) Sane people have to take our country back. Pregnancy prevention through education is key. Then we can celebrate.

  17. There are a lot of pro life liberals.. but no one likes to talk about them, Peter. I don’t know why you’re trying to change this argument into something else. No one likes to talk about the life and death of it. I think it’s time.

    • Peter Schwartz

      It’s not changing the topic into something else. I’m pointing out that the pro-life position generally privileges fetus life even as it makes all kinds calculations as to other matters of life and death. I know many pro-life liberals, but not many of them want to outlaw abortion. In the end, that’s what this argument is about–removing the opportunity for the woman to make a choice. Again, a world 100% free of abortions is a pro-choice ideal.

  18. Babette d'Yveine

    No one should have the right to make any decisions about a woman’s body but herself.

  19. Abortions did not begin with Roe v. Wade, but back alley abortions ended with Roe v.Wade.

  20. What I learned on the Internet today

    Not much.
    – A.E. Newman

  21. From the SCOTUS decision in Roe. It seems that many who hold forth here have no understanding of the case. Note the finding in 3. (c).

    “3. State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother’s behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman’s qualified right to terminate her pregnancy. Though the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman’s health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a “compelling” point at various stages of the woman’s approach to term. Pp. 147-164.

    (a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman’s attending physician. Pp. 163, 164.

    (b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health. Pp. 163, 164.

    (c) For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. Pp. 163-164; 164-165.”

  22. Dan, I think it is time to abort this thread.