Sanctity of Life (Abortion Megathread)

robp

Overheal wrote: »

There are no abuses. What abuses? Any 'abuse' they are committing is within the law, voted in.

Just because the Obama administration said it is legal does not make it is legal. That is an appeal to authority fallacy. Foetal tissue can be donated but selling it is illegal and deeply ethical. Perhaps PP can use a loophole by arguing that they were merely charging to cover the group’s costs of donating the tissue but to sell aborted babies though this loophole would be blatantly against the spirit of the 1993 law.


Heck even the biotech firm StemExpress, which allegedly bought fetal tissue from Planned Parenthood for profit have broken the relationship with Planned Parenthood and biotech firms are rarely are concerned about public image.

robp

Overheal wrote: »

The woman's right to choose not to bring another orphan into the world is preserved, etc.

If it is acceptable to abort an unborn child that will grow up to be a orphan (literal or metaphorical) then why is it wrong to kill an orphan newborn? Both kids are just as likely to endure challenges and unfairness that average kids won't have to deal with. Seriously what the hell is so magical about passing through a vagina that it actually endows personhood for you?

Two Sheds

robp wrote: »

...

Heck even the biotech firm StemExpress, which allegedly bought fetal tissue from Planned Parenthood for profit have broken the relationship with Planned Parenthood and biotech firms are rarely are concerned about public image.

StemExpress knows it's in deep doo-doo if it remains attached to Planned Parenthood.
The gravity of the act of severing its ties cannot be overstated, especially in light of the alleged pending video of StemExpress executives.

Overheal

robp wrote: »

If it is acceptable to abort an unborn child that will grow up to be a orphan (literal or metaphorical) then why is it wrong to kill an orphan newborn? Both kids are just as likely to endure challenges and unfairness that average kids won't have to deal with. Seriously what the hell is so magical about passing through a vagina that it actually endows personhood for you?

That is a massive strawman argument. With all due respect, I'm not even going there.

Just because the Obama administration said it is legal does not make it is legal. That is an appeal to authority fallacy.

True, but its actually the Department of Health raising the finger, and the Justice Department will get involved if need be. (Although when you're the POTUS, how fallible is the appeal to authority? ) News outlets are also reporting in agreeance that whether or not defunding measures are legal, is both questionable and historically have been proven to not be legal. They aren't just pulling that out of thin air, and this is hardly the first time attempts to defund the organization have been made....

Heck even the biotech firm StemExpress, which allegedly bought fetal tissue from Planned Parenthood for profit have broken the relationship with Planned Parenthood and biotech firms are rarely are concerned about public image.

....Which is why that's the most compelling thing I've heard in weeks about the topic. Unless they've been doing short term business with PP, or are for some reason forecasting a threat to them (activists, etc.), then it is definitely odd.

Overheal

I'm a follower of 3D printing, and this stood as both an excellent use of the technology, and an interesting piece people might like to see as a contribution to the thread:



So one, ultrasound+3D printing is awesome (3D is still kind of 'novel' so I love whenever it gets new applications), and second I have no idea what stage of development the particular fetus is.

MrPudding

Overheal wrote: »

I'm a follower of 3D printing, and this stood as both an excellent use of the technology, and an interesting piece people might like to see as a contribution to the thread:



So one, ultrasound+3D printing is awesome (3D is still kind of 'novel' so I love whenever it gets new applications), and second I have no idea what stage of development the particular fetus is.

That is an wonderful application of technology. I now, however, await the anti-choice politicians in the US trying to pass laws where a woman has to have her foetus 3D printed and then have some mandated and supervised 'cuddle' time with be model before she can have an abortion.

MrP

PopePalpatine

Don't give BM's inevitable re-reg account any ideas.

Delirium

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Don't give BM's inevitable re-reg account any ideas.

MOD NOTE

Lets keep to the topic please.

Thanks for your attention.

robdonn

Congress Investigates Obama Admin’s Connection to Planned Parenthood Selling Aborted Babies

One of the House committees looking into the scandal of Planned Parenthood selling aborted babies and their body parts is now looking into the Obama administration and whether there is any connection between it and the abortion giant.

The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform was to know if the Obama administration, via the Department of Health and Human Services, provided any federal grants to Planned Parenthood that ultimately went to pay for the sales of aborted baby body parts and if they were used by Planned Parenthood to “support transactions involving fetal tissue.”

Basically, does Obama have anything to do with the crimes that have not been shown to have ever happened.

The Randy Riverbeast

It's funny how when given a title for a news article I can guess the source.

I'm wondering what happens when a person donates their body to science or a hospital. Who is selling dead people there? The bodies don't just magically appear in the right place in the right condition.

I'm trying to figure out what's ok to "sell" and what isn't.

Peregrinus

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

I'm wondering what happens when a person donates their body to science or a hospital. Who is selling dead people there?

Well, nobody.

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

The bodies don't just magically appear in the right place in the right condition.

I'm trying to figure out what's ok to "sell" and what isn't.

A gift is not a sale, Randy.

I haven't followed this whole Planned Parenthood selling (or not selling) foetal tissue schemozzle, but if the allegation is that they are selling it, then it's not helpful to compare that situation to the situation of people who donate their remains to science.

robdonn

Peregrinus wrote: »

I haven't followed this whole Planned Parenthood selling (or not selling) foetal tissue schemozzle, but if the allegation is that they are selling it, then it's not helpful to compare that situation to the situation of people who donate their remains to science.

Well it is the same, the foetal remains are donated. The "selling" that is being argued is a (potentially illegal) recording of a conversation about financial reimbursement of costs (prep, handling and transport). As The Randy Riverbeast said:

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

The bodies don't just magically appear in the right place in the right condition.

The group that recorded and released the videos are claiming that the prices being negotiated are somehow indicative of PP making profits (assisted by one doctor's dark joke about a Lamborghini), yet no evidence has been provided beyond this that PP are actually profiting with many experts actually stating that the prices quoted would probably just about cover the costs.

MrPudding

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, nobody.


A gift is not a sale, Randy.

I haven't followed this whole Planned Parenthood selling (or not selling) foetal tissue schemozzle, but if the allegation is that they are selling it, then it's not helpful to compare that situation to the situation of people who donate their remains to science.

I think you are missing the point. It is exactly the same, in fact. The foetal tissue, like the body is gifted. When the person that has left their body to science does it is highly unlike they have died exactly where their body is needed. Additionally, as the body is to be used it needed to be treated differently to a 'normal' death.

The preparation and transport of foetal tissue, like the preparation and transport of a cadaver, require specialist preparation and transport. In the case of foetal tissue the preparation of the tissue and organisation of transport is handled by the clinic. Not unreasonably they seek to recover these costs. This is similar to how a hospital would seek to recover any costs they incurred handling a body that was donated to science.

This is not a matter of making profit, it is a matter of not incurring costs providing a service for someone else's benefit. If you were a solicitor and you have to retain the services of an expert on behalf of a client, would you absorb those costs or pass them on? Even where you have fees to offset the costs against you will pass the expert's fee on. Where you aren't even being paid for the service, or the tissue or body, there isn't anything to offset costs against, so it is even more important to claim back the cost of providing the service.

MrP

Peregrinus

OK, as I say I haven't followed this dispute at all, so you are both probably ahead of me. Is it alleged that PP is passing on foetal tissue (for whatever purpose) without the informed consent of the woman concerned? Or is the allegation that they do obtain her informed consent, but don't tell her that they are receiving payment? And is the purpose (or alleged purpose) for which they are passing on the foetal tissue one that is disclosed to her, or that she would be likely to approve of if it were disclosed to her?

If the tissue is being used for a purpose beneficial to the public (in a way analogous to the way that bodies donated for research or education are used) I wouldn't have a problem with the handling costs being passed on to the end-users. I would have a problem if PP were making a turn on the deal, but I think you are saying that they are not.

But if the tissue is being used for commercial purposes then, yes, I would be very squeamish about the whole thing.

MrPudding

Peregrinus wrote: »

OK, as I say I haven't followed this dispute at all, so you are both probably ahead of me. Is it alleged that PP is passing on foetal tissue (for whatever purpose) without the informed consent of the woman concerned? Or is the allegation that they do obtain her informed consent, but don't tell her that they are receiving payment? And is the purpose (or alleged purpose) for which they are passing on the foetal tissue one that is disclosed to her, or that she would be likely to approve of if it were disclosed to her?

If the tissue is being used for a purpose beneficial to the public (in a way analogous to the way that bodies donated for research or education are used) I wouldn't have a problem with the handling costs being passed on to the end-users. I would have a problem if PP were making a turn on the deal, but I think you are saying that they are not.

But if the tissue is being used for commercial purposes then, yes, I would be very squeamish about the whole thing.

No issue with consent, they I am aware of. The allegation, which does not appear to have been backed up as of yet, is that they are selling the tissue for profit. The videos don't show this, they show them talking about PP looking to recover their costs for collecting, processing and shipping the tissue.

MrP

Overheal

In addition, the people recording the video, and prompting the conversation which leads us to a joke about a sports car and discussing dollar amounts for tissue, is an anti-abortion group. In some cases you can watch as the undercover person selects their words painstakingly to try and get the right soundbytes out of the conversation.

Overheal

And where is the outrage to shut down embryo donations?? Nowhere.

http://www.syracuse.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/08/fertility_clinics_and_the_double_standard_on_planned_parenthood_commentary.html

Last month, my husband and I signed forms donating an embryo we had conceived to medical research. Meanwhile, conservative Republicans are vowing to defund Planned Parenthood for allowing women who have abortions to make the same choice.

My husband and I used in vitro fertilization to conceive both our children. The process involved extracting my eggs, fertilizing them in a lab and implanting a healthy embryo inside me. Many patients — like my husband and me — produce more embryos (also called "pre-embryos" before they are implanted) than they can use. So clinics cryogenically freeze them until patients choose to use them in another IVF cycle, dispose of them, donate them to scientific research (which results in their destruction) or offer them to an infertile couple. After two years and careful thought, we chose to donate ours to research. We hope our choice will help doctors find cures for debilitating and fatal illnesses such as Huntington's disease and ALS.

Like our fertility clinic, Planned Parenthood allows women to donate to medical research tissue from an embryo or fetus they will not carry to term. Like our clinic, Planned Parenthood receives no profit for this, only reimbursement for its costs. (Indeed, the full, unedited version of the video that sparked recent Republican outrage provides evidence that Planned Parenthood does not profit from giving women this choice.)

Yet there are striking differences between my experience and that of a woman seeking an abortion. In Pennsylvania (where my fertility clinic is located), a woman seeking an abortion must receive state-directed counseling designed to discourage her from the procedure. She must then wait at least 24 hours until she can continue. In other states, women are forced to undergo unnecessary and invasive ultrasounds, watch or listen to a description of the ultrasound, and hear a lecture on how the embryo or fetus is a human life. Clinics in some states must provide them with medically inaccurate information on the risks of abortion. After all that, women often cannot have an abortion without waiting an additional one to three days, depending on the state.

In contrast, all my husband and I had to do was sign a form. Our competence to choose the outcome of our embryo was never questioned. There were no mandatory lectures on gestation, no requirement that I be explicitly told that personhood begins at conception or that I view a picture of a day-five embryo. There was no compulsory waiting period for me to reconsider my decision. In fact, no state imposes these restrictions — so common for abortion patients — on patients with frozen embryos. With rare exceptions, the government doesn't interfere with an IVF patient's choices except to resolve disagreements between couples.


[more]

The author of that article embeds some really useful links, including this one https://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/gpr/09/4/gpr090406.html which details state by state what the process is for abortion counseling, and which states give biased or impartial information to participants. It references a 2006 paper.

For those joining the topic, this will get you up to speed the quickest: http://www.factcheck.org/2015/07/unspinning-the-planned-parenthood-video

Planned Parenthood is launching political ads in key battleground states: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/planned-parenthood-counterattack-121460.html

This piece of blurb is especially meaty,

During Bobby Jindal’s two terms as governor, his administration has blocked Medicaid expansion in Louisiana, cut public health care funding to the bone, closed mental health facilities, closed the Baton Rouge General-Mid City emergency room, closed the publicly funded Earl K. Long Medical Center in Baton Rouge, and has not adequately funded the new University Medical Center in New Orleans.

A 50-state study puts Jindal’s Louisiana in second-to-last place for children’s health outcomes.

Under Jindal’s tenure as governor, Louisiana has had some of the highest rates of chlamydia, gonorrhea, and syphilis and HIV/AIDS in the nation. While teen pregnancy rates and teen birth rates have decreased across the country, both have increased in Louisiana. While abortion rates have decreased around the country, they have increased in Louisiana.

Jindal’s administration has repeatedly blocked legislation that would call for mandatory, age-appropriate, medically accurate sexual-health education in schools. Last year Jindal banned Planned Parenthood from providing sex education in Louisiana public schools.

And now Jindal wants to cut health care options in Louisiana even more.

http://thelensnola.org/2015/08/18/under-assault-planned-parenthood-blames-jindal-for-making-a-shambles-of-state-health-care/ So if you wonder what not having womens health clinics looks like, or proper sex ed, look no further. You don't need to know what STDs are Billy, just pray to Jesus. Bobby J, I don't think Jesus wanted people to be that dumb.

Two Sheds

Overheal wrote: »

In addition, the people recording the video, and prompting the conversation which leads us to a joke about a sports car and discussing dollar amounts for tissue, is an anti-abortion group. In some cases you can watch as the undercover person selects their words painstakingly to try and get the right soundbytes out of the conversation.

Maybe that's because it's what you do when you're trying to expose somebody?

I don't think a discussion centring on the wine list would have the same impact.

Two Sheds

Overheal wrote: »

...
http://thelensnola.org/2015/08/18/under-assault-planned-parenthood-blames-jindal-for-making-a-shambles-of-state-health-care/ So if you wonder what not having womens health clinics looks like, or proper sex ed, look no further. You don't need to know what STDs are Billy, just pray to Jesus. Bobby J, I don't think Jesus wanted people to be that dumb.

The referenced study is produced by Center for Reproductive Rights & Ibis Reproductive Health

CRR -

is a global reproductive rights organization that uses constitutional and international law to secure women's right to an abortion in over 45 countries.

Ibis Reproductive Health -

Work to increase access to abortion is Ibis’s top priority.

The article is written by the state director of Planned Parenthood Louisiana.

'nuf said.

Overheal

Two Sheds wrote: »

The referenced study is produced by Center for Reproductive Rights & Ibis Reproductive Health

CRR -
Ibis Reproductive Health -

The article is written by the state director of Planned Parenthood Louisiana.

'nuf said.

Argumentum Ad Hominem. Probably the lowest hanging fruit of all the logical fallacies.

Instead, do you have any counter-evidence to suggest that what is said in the study is false? Does Louisiana in fact have a decreasing rate of STDs and Teen Pregnancies and Abortions? All you have to do is prove that. Should be pretty simple. I'll wait.

Two Sheds wrote: »

Maybe that's because it's what you do when you're trying to expose somebody?

Well, kind of like when people are trolling or flamebaiting, its both a) pretty obvious its happening, when you present the video to people and b) can oftentimes invalidate your argument. As I brought up earlier, the same group tried to shut down Planned Parenthood about 13-14 years ago by impersonating pregnant teenagers who had been raped by older gentlemen, and eliciting responses from PP counselors that may have been reprimandable - however, the DOJ concluded that because no raped pregnant teenagers had actually been involved, no atrocity had occurred. Similarly, impersonating a biomed purchaser would be tantamount to the same type of self-defeating evidence. Had they actually recorded a negotiation for profit between PP and a purchaser, that would have been a slam dunk. Alas, I guess the organization can't get into those meetings to record.. because they don't actually happen!

Two Sheds

Overheal wrote: »

Argumentum Ad Hominem. Probably the lowest hanging fruit of all the logical fallacies.

Instead, do you have any counter-evidence to suggest that what is said in the study is false? Does Louisiana in fact have a decreasing rate of STDs and Teen Pregnancies and Abortions? All you have to do is prove that. Should be pretty simple. I'll wait.

Do you actually read your own posts?

Overheal wrote: »

In addition, the people recording the video, and prompting the conversation which leads us to a joke about a sports car and discussing dollar amounts for tissue, is an anti-abortion group. In some cases you can watch as the undercover person selects their words painstakingly to try and get the right soundbytes out of the conversation.

Kev W

Two Sheds wrote: »

Do you actually read your own posts?

So it's okay if it suits your agenda but not otherwise?

Overheal

Two Sheds wrote: »

Do you actually read your own posts?

I stated that as a matter of fact: the activist group responsible for the video is an anti-abortion group with a pushed agenda for an end to abortions and/or PP. I also bring up the fact that what they did in the video was try to socially engineer the conversation to fabricate soundbytes they could take to the media. I explained to someone new to the scenario: who recorded the video, their aim, and their methodology. Whatever the group turns up as evidence turns up as evidence; so far though, all investigations (which surely included looking at all the footage) have turned up no foul play in Planned Parenthood. Let me emphasize: Formal State Investigations have concluded the videos have no evidence, which has nothing to do with who the group is, and everything to do with there being no evidence

What I did not do, was dismiss a study without providing any refuting evidence. Won't expect any from you either, since it doesn't exist

Two Sheds

Overheal wrote: »

I stated that as a matter of fact: the activist group responsible for the video is an anti-abortion group with a pushed agenda for an end to abortions and/or PP. I also bring up the fact that what they did in the video was try to socially engineer the conversation to fabricate soundbytes they could take to the media.

What I did not do, was dismiss a study without providing any refuting evidence. Won't expect any from you either, since it doesn't exist

You posted a pro-abortion study by two pro-abortion groups, written by an executive of a pro-abortion organisation and you want me to prove you wrong?

Don't be silly!

The onus is on you to provide material from unbiased sources.

Kev W

Two Sheds wrote: »

You posted a pro-abortion study by two pro-abortion groups, written by an executive of a pro-abortion organisation and you want me to prove you wrong?

Don't be silly!

The onus is on you to provide material from unbiased sources.

Can't you say you haven't used unbiased sources?

Overheal

Two Sheds wrote: »

You posted a pro-abortion study by two pro-abortion groups, written by an executive of a pro-abortion organisation and you want me to prove you wrong?

Don't be silly!

The onus is on you to provide material from unbiased sources.

Shifting the Burden of Proof

You claim that the study is false. Your argument to this effect is an Ad Hominem. The Burden of Proof on the claim that the study is false falls on the claimant making the statement that it is false. Please provide your counter-study showing that the claim is false.

robdonn

Two Sheds wrote: »

You posted a pro-abortion study by two pro-abortion groups, written by an executive of a pro-abortion organisation and you want me to prove you wrong?

Don't be silly!

The onus is on you to provide material from unbiased sources.

The onus is on you to find fault with the material, not the source. I should know, I was reprimanded by both Lazybones and Overheal (people on both sides of this argument, I believe) on the issue of "unbiased sources".

You can attack the materials lack of sources, contradicting studies, logical falicies or anything else you find in it, but it should be about the content.

Delirium

MOD NOTE

Just a reminder that if people have a problem with a post, report it.

Do not tell posters that they should be banned as that isn't "attacking the post, not the poster".

Thanks for your attention.

Overheal

The devil can sometimes be in the reporting: one article claiming that Teenage Pregnancy has gone down... from the metrics in the 80s. http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/05/report_teen_pregnancy_down_in.html

Meanwhile, compared to other states with more progressive programs in place for health and education, Louisiana had the 8th highest TP rate in 2008, and the new study published in 2014 ranked them 5th.

http://www.hhs.gov/ash/oah/adolescent-health-topics/reproductive-health/states/la.html

None of that debunks the 2006 findings, as that was the case in 2006. However it doesn't disprove that Louisiana's policies aren't harmful. It may only suggest that the decline in the intra-state rate of abortion is due to external/national factors, shared by all states.

Here is a 2010 study by the Guttmacher Institute http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/USTPtrends10.pdf those wishing to dismiss GI as evidence for any Ad Hominem may find this information useful http://www.guttmacher.org/about/mission.html

Overheal

Seems not all religious groups are on board with the moves to try to defund Planned Parenthood:

http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/topics/politics/documents/08.3.2015FaithSupportforPPFAtoSenate.pdf

We, the 56 undersigned national faith-based and religious groups, state and local affiliates stand with Planned Parenthood, with its millions of patients and with its health centers that have served families in the US for nearly a century. Planned Parenthood touches the lives of millions of young people with education programs and online information that helps foster health and safety; it provides women with quality medical services, including abortion; and it embodies the highest of standards of medical and ethical care.

We represent millions of people of faith committed to ensuring women’s health and moral autonomy. We are deeply troubled by the latest deplorable attacks on Planned Parenthood by faux groups, which demonstrate the lengths to which antiabortion extremists will go to curtail women’s right to obtain a legal medical procedure.

Our organizations share a faith-centered commitment to the most marginalized and the most vulnerable of our society, including those with limited financial means or those who live in areas with limited access to healthcare and related services. For many, Planned Parenthood is their only source of medical care. Many Planned Parenthood patients are struggling to make ends meet. In times of economic hardship, the need for Planned Parenthood is greater than ever.

A world without Planned Parenthood would be disastrous for many women and their families—particularly young women, women of color and women in rural areas. Planned Parenthood health centers are on the front lines helping women and men, especially those of limited means, to prevent unintended pregnancies. They support prevention and treatment efforts for HIV and other STDs; offer life‐saving cancer screenings; and provide crucial medically accurate information about sexual health.

As people of diverse faith traditions, we understand the myriad beliefs and moral complexity that exist on issues of reproductive health—abortion in particular. The duplicity of the so-called Center for Medical Progress shows a disturbing lack of concern for women’s health and safety. Such behavior does nothing to further the discourse on such a complex issue.

It is shameful that desperate antichoice extremists would resort to methods of deceit to try to dupe the public and policymakers. The smear campaign videos are heavily edited and misleading in order to make it appear that Planned Parenthood profits from donations of fetal tissue for medical research. The truth is: some Planned Parenthood health centers do participate in programs where fetal tissue is donated, at the client’s request, for use in critical biomedical research to help find cures for diseases like Parkinson's and Alzheimer's. Patients make the decision to donate tissue for such research. Planned Parenthood does not profit from such voluntary, legal donations.

The recent efforts of the so-called Center for Medical Progress were undertaken with a singular goal in mind: to limit access to the critical reproductive health services that Planned Parenthood provides. This goal is deeply political and will harm women and families’ health and economic security.

We urge you to reject attacks that would reduce federal funding or otherwise undermine the provision of critical services by Planned Parenthood.
Our organizations respect women’s moral agency and are committed to the social good. We value compassion and feel obligated to protect women’s health and well-being. We value real religious liberty, which upholds the right of each person to make their own faith-informed or conscience-based healthcare decisions. As groups representing millions of people of faith, including those who access healthcare at local Planned Parenthood centers, we affirm our support for the incredible and necessary work of this organization. We call on you to reject the underhanded, dishonest attempts to discredit Planned Parenthood and to consider who will be harmed if federal funding to this important organization is blocked or eliminated.

As organizations of faith, we stand with Planned Parenthood. As members of Congress committed to supporting the health and well-being of your constituents, we urge you to do the same.

Sincerely,

(National)

A Critical Mass: Women Celebrating Eucharist
Anti-Defamation League
Bend the Arc: A Jewish Partnership for Justice
Catholics for Choice
Concerned Clergy for Choice
DignityUSA
Episcopal Women's Caucus
Hadassah, The Women's Zionist Organization of America, Inc.
Hindu American Foundation
International Rabbinical Assembly
Jewish Alliance for Law and Social Action
Jewish Council for Public Affairs
Jewish Women International
Keshet
Methodist Federation for Social Action
Muslims for Progressive Values
National Coalition of American Nuns (NCAN)
National Council of Jewish Women
New Ways Ministry
Reconstructionist Rabbinical College and Jewish Reconstructionist Communities
Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice
Religious Institute, Inc.
Unitarian Universalist Association
Unitarian Universalist Women's Federation
Women's Alliance for Theology, Ethics, and Ritual (WATER)
Women's League for Conservative Judaism

(State and Local)

California Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice
National Council of Jewish Women California State Policy Advocacy Chair
National Council of Jewish Women, Los Angeles Section
National Council of Jewish Women, Long Beach Section
National Council of Jewish Women, San Francisco Section
San Francisco Bay Area Women-Church
Colorado Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice
Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice Connecticut
National Council of Jewish Women, Greater Miami Section
National Council of Jewish Women, Palm Beach Section
National Council of Jewish Women, Sarasota-Manatee Section
National Council of Jewish Women Illinois State Policy Advocate
Chicago Women-Church
National Council of Jewish Women, Chicago North Shore Section
National Council of Jewish Women, South Cook Section (IL)
Kentucky Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice
National Council of Jewish Women Maine State Policy Advocate
National Council of Jewish Women, Southern Maine Section
National Council of Jewish Women Michigan State Policy Advocates
National Council of Jewish Women, Greater Minneapolis Section
National Council of Jewish Women, St. Louis Section
National Council of Jewish Women, Bergen County Section (NJ)
National Council of Jewish Women, Essex County Section (NJ)
National Council of Jewish Women, Peninsula Section (NY)
Ohio Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice
National Council of Jewish Women, Columbus Section (OH)
National Council of Jewish Women, Greater Dallas Section
National Council of Jewish Women, Utah Section
National Council of Jewish Women Washington State Policy Advocate
National Council of Jewish Women, Seattle Section