Why do I mention this^? Because it shows that it takes something shocking to get the pro-choicers fired up. Normally, we don't hear from them - not like the pro-lifers, who are always fired up and vocal. Pro-choicers are pretty much a silent group unless there is a reason to march (new law, Supreme Court ruling, opposition to a planned pro-life march, etc.). My point is that if abortion is illegal these kinds of deaths will rise, outrage will grow, and then we'll head back toward legal abortion. Currently, most Americans identify as pro-choice in polls, but if illegal abortion deaths increase the numbers of pro-lifers will quickly grow, IMO. There is no way that full abortion restriction will stand for any length of time. It's pretty much a hopeless cause on the part of pro-lifers over the long run. In the short term, like in recent years, it's possible for pro-lifers to make headway. The movement has had a good decade or two lately. That probably won't continue. Even this one election shows that tollerance of hard right agendas will not be tollerated for very long, once people see it's supporters are more extreme than they realized. But I could be wrong. I've been wrong once before.
On his campaign website, DesJarlais espoused an anti-abortion position, saying: "All life should be cherished and protected. We are pro-life."
Republican U.S. Rep. Scott DesJarlais of Tennessee testified during divorce proceedings that he and his former wife made a "mutual" decision for her to have two abortions, according to divorce transcripts released Thursday.
See? They want to put draconian laws onto the backs of women but in private they do exactly what they say not to. The pro-life movement: Don't be a sucker for it.
And then he tops it off with this: Transcripts of the DesJarlais divorce proceedings also reveal that the congressman had affairs with women who worked for him, including a lab technician he was with at a hospital Christmas party. Other parts of the transcript reveal patients who said they had sex with the doctor also claiming he wrote them drug prescriptions. Both actions would likely be considered violations of state ethics laws.