A little back story on how I came to read this article in the first place:
So, I'm an atheist. I don't consider myself anti theist in general, just when it comes to the types who feel the need to impose their religion on others. I have an acquaintance, we're friends on Facebook, but have only hung out together in a group setting, she's born-again Christian and it is her life. She homeschools her children with very religious material and, while not actively trying to have a buncha babies, doesn't use birth control and leaves it up to God to decide how many she will have. She's currently pregnant with baby number four. I've pretty much always written her off as not-too-bright, you should see how many hashtags she uses. Also, early in her marriage, her husband hit her a few times and she accepted it as God testing her. Scary, but it wasn't a long term pattern. I'm not saying that to minimize abuse, just to say it's not ongoing.
Anyway, I posted a version of my opinion on the buffer zone ruling, making it very clear that I agree with the ruling only because of the way the law was worded and the implications it could have, but I'm strongly pro-choice and want solid laws protecting the patients and workers at these clinics. I'm not sure that I've ever been so explicit about it, I have a few friends and family members who are super religious antis, and I was prepared to lose a few friends over it, her being one of them. I was surprised when she actually commented thanking me for being a "reasonable voice on the other side."
Alright, so all that blather was to say that she is the one who posted this article and I was again surprised by something from her.
So, I'm a Judgy Judgerson and I should reserve that a bit. I respect her a little more than I did before, but still think she falls on the extreme end of the spectrum.
What do y'all think of this article?