Viva La Cola!

Founded in January 2009, PubliCola is a blog about Seattle written by journalists who are dedicated to non-partisan, original daily reporting that prioritizes a balanced approach to news. Started by longtime local editor and award-winning reporter Josh Feit, PubliCola is the first online-only news site in state history to get media credentials to cover the state capitol.

PubliCola was off and running. In June 2009, PubliCola hired another award-winning journalist, super-sourced Seattle city hall reporter Erica C. Barnett.

People were afraid that blogging would change journalism. Instead, we believe journalism can change blogging. Twenty-first century journalism may look and feel different, and yes Erica isn't afraid to get cranky, but we're committed to making sure online news still delivers independent, reliable, even-keeled coverage. And most of all, we're committed to making sure the coverage sparks honest civic debate.

Bringing you cola for the people, PubliCola is named after Publius Valerius PubliCola, the alias for the authors of the Federalist Papers—the original bloggers.

The first online-only news site in state history to get media credentials to cover the state capitol and Seattle city hall, PubliCola has been called a “must-read” by the Seattle Post Intelligencer and a hot “New Media Mover and Shaker” by Seattle Magazine—which also cited our own Erica C. Barnett as the city's No. 1 news nerd.

Five Lies From the Latest Anti-Abortion Bill

Should this ball of cells have more rights than a grown woman?

As we noted in Fizz yesterday morning, state legislators—seven Republicans and one Democrat, Mark Miloscia (D-30)— have proposed legislation mandating women’s “informed consent,” along with a 24-hour waiting period, before they can obtain an abortion.

In addition to being unbelievably condescending—imagine a bill mandating that men learn all about how sex works before they can get a prescription for Viagra–the bill incorporates many beliefs that are faith-based at best, medically inaccurate or dangerous at worst.

Here are the five biggest lies perpetuated by the bill:

1) Abortions harm women’s physical health—in particular, raising the risk of certain cancers. (The bill refers to the “potential mental and physical health consequences” of abortion).

In fact, every reputable study has shown that having an abortion has zero impact on women’s physical health. For example, in 2003, the National Cancer Institutes found that “abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk,” a conclusion it designated as “well-established,” the institute’s highest rating.

Additionally, abortion does not pose risks to a woman’s future fertility, nor does it regularly result in medical complications; in a study by the Guttmacher Institute, just 0.5 percent of women who had abortions experienced serious complications requiring surgery or hospitalization.

Contrast those stats with the potential physical risks of carrying a pregnancy to term—including death (the chance of dying from childbirth is 11 times higher than that of dying from an abortion), nausea and vomiting, backaches, preeclampsia (sudden hypertension, which often forces pregnant women to go on bed rest), ectopic pregnancies, and blood clots, to name just a few—and it’s a wonder women aren’t required to give “informed consent” to carry a pregnancy to term.

2) Abortions harm women’s mental health, increasing the likelihood that a woman will suffer depression, sadness, grief, regret, anxiety and guilt. (See quote above).

The evidence for so-called “postabortion traumatic stress syndrome,” as abortion opponents refer to the alleged mental health consequences of getting an abortion, is nonexistent. In fact, according to the American Psychological Association, the most common feeling women report after an abortion is a sense of happiness or relief. That isn’t to say that the decision to obtain an abortion (like the decision to have a child) isn’t a serious medical decision that involves emotions, including, in some cases, grief. However, as it turns out, the best predictor of a woman’s mental health after an abortion is her mental health before an abortion.

3) Women are incapable of choosing abortion without a lecture from a doctor explaining what an abortion is, the fact that some women are eligible for public assistance, and that child support exists.

“The knowledgeable exercise of a woman’s decision to have an abortion depends on the extent to which the woman receives sufficient information to make an informed choice between two alternatives: Giving birth or having an abortion,” the legislation reads. It also requires women to either watch an “informational video,” read printed materials “describ[ing] the unborn child at various stages from conception to natural birth” and receive contact information for religious crisis pregnancy centers, or sign a form stating that she has waived that right.

I hope it goes without saying that women seeking abortion are generally: Aware of what pregnancy is, aware of what abortion is, aware of the existence of child support, and aware that there are organizations that oppose abortion.

4) Women routinely get abortions without any knowledge of what an abortion, or pregnancy, is.

From the bill: “Women and girls often obtain abortions without a full understanding of the potential physical and mental health consequences to themselves and the unborn baby they are carrying.”

As someone who was educated in the US public school system, I was well aware of what pregnancy was by the time I was old enough to have to worry about it. I’m willing to wager that, even with today’s abstinence-only “sex education” programs, girls are taught the potential consequences of unprotected sex—and that if they aren’t, they’ve seen enough “16 and Pregnant” to know that sex can lead to pregnancy, and that abortion can end it.

5) “Unborn child at various stages from conception.”

No. Anyone who believes that a cluster of cells has more rights—more humanity—than a grown woman who has made the difficult decision to terminate a pregnancy should not be in a position to limit women’s rights to do so.

I have a call out to Miloscia to find out why he is sponsoring the “informed consent” legislation.


  • Jakers

    Why is this even being discussed during a special session? Shouldn’t everyone be focused on cutting costs and increasing revenue right now?

  • Jakers

    Why is this even being discussed during a special session? Shouldn’t everyone be focused on cutting spending and increasing revenue?

  • Jakers

    Also, how have you not jumped on this story yet!? Cops making fun of a hurt pedestrian. WARNING, it refers to the incident as an accident but doesn’t bother saying who was at fault.

    http://www.seattlepi.com/local/komo/article/Video-shows-cops-mocking-critically-injured-man-2414118.php

  • The Law Won

    Let’s also state that making women sign a statement that they know that the abortion “ends the life” of their unborn baby is cruel

  • Anonymous

    why does Erica hate motherhood so much?  First she goes on an anti-breastfeeding tirade, now she’s encouraging all women to get abortions.  I don’t get it.

  • SeattleFail

    She is doing her part for Zero Population Growth.  

    The cats will inherit the earth, in her mind

  • http://www.twitter.com/joeszi Joe Szilagyi

    Because Jesus.

  • Nemo

    Where do these Fundie wingnuts think they are, Mississippi? Oh, wait….

  • Blandpudding

    This is great news for Inslee and Cantwell. It will force their opponents to take a position on this legislation, and they’ll lose support either way they go. Nice to get some knuckle-draggers doing our work for us.

  • Jakers

    And what about the medical marijuana ones?

  • Jakers

    What does a drunk driver hitting a pregnant women resulting in a miscarriage do? Does it end the life of an unborn baby? What does the law say it does?

  • Jakers

    selfishness. one too many kids ruining her dinner at some restaurant. too hard to ride a bike with kids. no need to get a babysitter to go out drinking. children bring a greater dependence on men (aka the devil).

  • Monster

    Erica hates motherhood becuse she will never be one, she is unpleasnt to look at, to hear, to read, all in all a horrible person who should of been aborted.she grew up frumpy and bottom heavy in conservative texas thus feels she needs to be like Daria

  • Anonymous

    yeeesh…pretty harsh

  • fount

    Why are you men so obsessed with Erica? That’s the real question. It’s like you’re all old jilted lovers who simply can’t let go.

  • Monster

    but spot on.

  • Monster

    Better question why are you trying to be her white knight? are you the creep who stole her laptop in hopes of finding *shudders* nude pictures.

  • dontbehardhearted

    The mark of a human society, is that it respects the rights of those that can’t speak for themselves, that are easy to shut aside.   The German society stepped onto the slippery slope intentionally erected by the Nazi’s when they started unthenizing the mentally disabled.  No one blinked or objected when these folks, in their sanitariams, where quietly murdered.  Out of sight out of mind.
    .
    Which brings me to Erica’s comment.  “No. Anyone who believes that a cluster of cells has more rights—more humanity—than a grown woman who has made the difficult decision to terminate a pregnancy should not be in a position to limit women’s rights to do so.”

    1.  The only time we can say with certaintly that a life does not exist, is before an egg is fertilized.   Fetal reactions to stimuli can be measured later in the pregnancy, and killing  fetus (e.g. you shoot the mother and the fetus dies is a chargeable Murder of the mother and Manslaughter of the unborn child) in the third tri-memster under Washington Law.   Which raises the question of why the unborn child is not life, entitle to such protections the day before the begining of the third tri-mester?   The only place you can draw a definitve line is at the point of conception.

    2.  An unborn child can’t speak for itself.   We must bend over backwards to protect innocent life that can’t speak for itself, particularly if that life was created involuntarily by the actions of the mother and father.

    3.  We don’t do enough to hold fathers accountable in these acts.   Women carry all the burden.  Dad was there to.   Dads can walk away from there obligation (they may have orders to pay, but they can evade them, but if Moms abandon the child in the same manner, loook out).   That is also fundamentally unjust, but that wrong, in no way mitigates violating the rights of an unborn child.   WE NEED TO HOLD FATHERS JUST AS ACCOUNTABLE AS MOTHERS.

    4.  There is a principal in law, that if you start providing aid to someone who can’t survive or avoid harm without that aid, you can be held criminally and civillily liable.   Why would that not hold true for an unborn child?   The mother starts providing that succor at conception?

    The woman (unless she is raped) and the male make a choiCes that lead to conception, which is the only definitive point we can find that a life begins.   The resulting child does not.   Erica, it seems to me that child is totally innocent, and the parents are culpable for their actions.   Why should the child pay with its life?   How we treat innocent third parties and defend their rights is the ultimate test of our humanity and the ultimate test of our committment to human dignity and rights.

  • blah blah blah

    WTH, dude. You mean to say you are anti-choice when so many of your other comments are fairly sensible? I guess everyone has to have some crank in them. Ugh. I guess I can’t like your comments anymore.

  • Anonymous

    im totally pro-choice…also a father…however, sometimes i get annoyed by those of the same political persuasion as myself for 1) unnecessarily jumping into the deep end of purely academic arguments (taking offense at a bus ad promoting breast feeding…really?) and 2) taking lightly abortion (its not traumatic to have one?  so, what, it’s a walk in the park?  I have several friends who were devastated having to have an abortion) or taking lightly a life growing within someone.  it bugs me.  life is precious…it really, really is.  I truly believe every woman should have dominion over her own body, but let’s not minimize the choices involved with this outcome.  i also know that not every child born is better off for it.  there are a lot of scary, wacky, crazy, selfish, fucked up people in the world who abuse, neglect, torture, and do other horrible horrible things to babies…and i cannot imagine bringing a child into that.  so, its a horrible choice to have to make and there are horrible outcomes, and letting the individual decide is the only logical solution.  

    as for my admonishment against erica for attacking motherhood…my feeling is she comments on things she doesnt fully and empirically understand and she should be more self aware.  

    finally, regarding personal liberties, barney frank has great things to say against big government conservatives:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6gDNTWiVeU

  • Anonymous

    by your logic, why should instances of rape be excluded from the prohibition of abortion?  the life is still innocent, it was the act of rape that was evil.  if the argument is between life and not-life, the fertilized egg is still life.  you introduce grey back into your otherwise black and white argument, which in effect, isnt much different from the grey of the pro-choice argument.

  • dontbehardhearted

    Your point is well taken.  

    The case could be made in rape, that the “homicide” of the unborn child was justifiable, like self-defense.   The woman is a victim too and could be further traumatized.   But that is a far different set of circumstances than applying poor judgement in terms of having unprotected sex.

    Assuming that an exception is made for rape, I seriously doubt that the 50,000 abortions per year in the U.S. are all from victims of rape.   For the sake of stipulated argument, even if 80% are, that still leaves 10,000 a year, 100,000 per decade, where an innocent life is being taken for the convenience of the parents, who are culpable for their choices and excercise of judgement.

  • Anonymous

    again, by your logic, i dont see how the “homicide” of an unborn (thus innocent) child could ever be justifiable.  perhaps the author of that child, the rapist, being killed in the act of self defense could be justifiable, but not the child.

    and, stripping out all the emotionally charged language of culpability and judgement (which really should be reserved for God), the numbers do not matter.  All there needs to be is one child brought about by rape to undo your argument.

  • dontbehardhearted

    If judgement should be reserved to God, then we cannot have a court adjudicate any taking of one life by another.   That is what we are talking about here and we have laws that regulate that, police to investigate the circumstances under which someone died, provide that to courts to enforce it, etc.   If a fertilized egg is a life, how is it any different?

    How can you justify charging someone with Manslaugter for the taking of the life of an unborn child the first day of the third tri-mester, but not the last day of the second tri-mester?   Maybe the line should be drawn at actual birth.   But if is drawn there you have the same problem.   The day before the child comes out of the birth canal, its not homicide, and the day of it is?  

    The only time we know its not a human being is before an egg is fertilized. 

    Again, the mark of a societies respect for human rights and the dignity of their fellow man, is how we treat those human beings that are quietest, least able to speak for themselves, etc.

  • Anonymous

    by judgement i meant “judge not, least you be judged”.  that is, all but one of us are sinners and as such, we should refrain from judging others and the errors they have made.

  • fount

    Scott, that’s the part of the Bible that most religious folks seem to always forget.

  • Don’t Throw Stones

    You can debate abortion all you want on an abstract, philosophical level, but the bottom line is, you don’t know how you would feel or what you would do until you’ve been there.  And, you can say allllll you want, “I would NEVER have an abortion.”  But, here’s the thing:  In my years of working in clinics, I can’t tell you how many patients I’ve seen who say, “I’m anti-choice, but…” or “I don’t believe in abortion, but…” What comes after the “but?”  ”…but I have 4 kids already and can’t afford another one emotionally or financially.”  ”…but my husband just left me and I have no money and not job and can’t do this on my own.”  ”…but my parents would kick me out if they knew I was sexually active.”  ”…but I’m only one semester away from getting my law degree and I can’t quit when I’m this close.” “…but I have heart problems and my doctor says I won’t live if I continue.”  ”…but the fetus tested positive for a genetic ailment and, if it survives, it will need constant, expensive medical care and I can’t afford that and don’t wish it on anyone.”  ”….but I was raped and could never love a monster’s child.” 

    Personally, you could make me watch a hundred videos about fetal development and I’d STILL say, “Yeah, whatever, get that clump of cells outta me!”  Wouldn’t faze me in the slightest. Annoy me?  Yes.  Change my mind.  Nope. 

    But, for these women, who ARE torn about their decision, but for some reason feel they have to choose abortion?  For them, this would be AWFUL.  And they already feel awful.  So what is the point?  

  • dontbehardhearted

    We misunderstand the vocabulary of the Old Testament.   To “Judge” was literally, “to condem”.   Think of Sodem and Gamora which were forever wiped from the face of the earth by God.   It does not mean that we are not to evaluate and punish the actions of others.  After all, in establishing the 10- commandments and the system of Hebrew Law a whole system of evaluating the conduct of others and punishing it was established.   If you are going quote “That shalt not Judge” do so accurately.   For by the way you quote it, legislatures and courts would be forbidden.

  • dontbehardhearted

    Argument from circumstances, and how one feels can justify anything.   If you are going to go that route, the logical outcome is a lawless society where might makes right.

    We are a society of “rule of law” where actions have consequences for the perpetrators of their actions so as to deter harm to innocent third parties.

    We all have done something we regret.   The mark of character is find a way to do the right thing anyway, pay that price, and make those impacted by our consequences whole.