Sunday Facepalm.

A pregnancy, at six weeks and two days. No perfect little mini-infant anywhere.

Rep. Louie Gohmert of Texas appeared on Breitbart to discuss recent efforts to restrict abortion rights and to advocate for the anti-choice “heartbeat bill,” which according to its creator, Janet Porter, is designed to eventually outlaw abortions “before the mother even knows she’s pregnant.”


After updating Marlow on the House’s passage of the bill, Gohmert advocated for Porter’s “heartbeat bill,” which would criminalize abortions as early as six weeks into a pregnancy.

“Even though it doesn’t have an exception for rape or incest, the thing is you’ve got about six weeks and you know when you’re pregnant within six weeks,” Gohmert said, “so even for them, there’s a way out.”

No, no there isn’t. What with the constant erosion of medical rights, there’s no window there. Once travel time is calculated, then the mandatory wait times, then the mandatory test times, and so on, no. Then there’s always the issue of whether or not a pregnant person has the money to secure a timely termination. A lot of women don’t know they are pregnant at six weeks. When I was pregnant, I certainly had reason to suspect that condition, and was tested. My test came up negative, twice. By the time I had a test come up positive, I was smack on eight weeks, and had a termination scheduled inside of two days later. That was as quick as possible, and with the new draconian age, it wouldn’t be fast enough.

Life is seldom simple, and there are so many bars to obtaining a termination now that a pregnant person can count themselves lucky if they make a termination by eight weeks or earlier.

Later in the interview, Gohmert compared abortion to child sacrifice.

“I remember reading in the Bible, early on, about sacrificing kids for idols,” Gohmert recalled. “And I thought, ‘Gosh, thank goodness we live in a day where that never happens,’ that people would never be that callous.”

Right. You christian assholes are more than callous enough to see women stripped of rights, with no bodily autonomy whatsoever. You don’t want them to be able to access birth control. You don’t care about pregnant people at all, you concern yourself solely with the power to force birth. You don’t care about their mental and emotional health. You’re callous enough to not give one teensy shit about actual children. You don’t care if they are neglected. You don’t care if they starve. You don’t care if they are beaten. You don’t care if they are raped. You don’t care if they end up on the street. You don’t care if they are killed. You certainly don’t care about pregnant people dying, that’s just fine with you, after all, sluts should be punished, shouldn’t they? :spits:

“And then you realize, ‘Wait, that’s what we’re doing with abortions.’ We’re sacrificing kids for the idol of self-centeredness,” Gohmert said.

It’s the opposite of self-centeredness, you vile doucheweasel. People who obtain a termination have their reasons, which are none of your business, but you can consider such decisions to be for the best, in all regards.

RWW has the full story.


  1. says

    If they at least advocated for mandatory paid maternal leave and free healthcare and education for children, then their “pro life” stance would be internally consistent and somewhat logical.
    But no, they are all about forcing the women to birth the children, and after that they can starve for all they care.

  2. lumipuna says

    From the first RWW link:

    Porter’s bill would make it illegal to perform an abortion if a fetal heartbeat can be detected, which can happen as early as six weeks into pregnancy, possibly before the woman even knows that she is pregnant. But, as she explained to Klingenschmitt, the fetal heartbeat actually begins just 18 days after conception, which means that as technology improves, her bill will essentially outlaw all abortion.

    “As technology increases,” she said, “we’re going to be hearing that baby’s heartbeat younger and younger. Remember, that heart is beating at 18 days; that’s before the mother even knows she’s pregnant. Now, we can’t technologically hear the baby’s heartbeat that soon, but one day perhaps we will and so it may be that [the heartbeat bill] will protect all of them eventually as technology improves.”

    Well, that sounds like a highly ingenious strategy, considering it makes no sense.

    Why does she think embryonic heartbeat has to be detectable in utero? Maybe she thinks people outside the anti-choce community don’t actually know or believe when the heartbeat really begins, so six weeks could be used as an intermediate threshold while wedging this issue forward. Later, with better technology, you could make earlier dates scientifically demonstrable, as if they aren’t already.

    (AFAIK, the medical consensus is that heartbeat actually begins around 25 days after conception; 18 days is hardly even the beginning of organ formation.)

Leave a Reply