I lived in Jackson, Mississippi for two years while working for the local ACLU. That was back in the good old days when Jackson had a second abortion clinic. The Jackson Women's Health Organization has been the target of the fanatical anti-abortion majority in Mississippi for years. The local wingnut in Jackson is Roy McMillan, one of the named defendants in the "Nuremberg Files" case (regarding the website that published doctors' names, addresses, and other identifying information and marked off those who had been killed). He would sit outside the second, now closed abortion clinic in a lawn chair with his bloody fetus signs. When a car would pull into the parking lot, he would write down the license plate number. Then he would hang over the fence while standing on a stepladder, whining, "mommy, mommy, please don't kill me" and making statements such as "if I was a racist, which I'm not, I would say, please don't kill your n***er baby."

Roy didn't hang out in front of the JWHO as much because there was a federal injunction against him pursuant to the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, since he had threatened the staff of the JWHO in graphic terms on several occasions. After I moved to Washington, DC, I saw Roy on the street among other protestors at the March For Women's Lives. He recognized me, too.

Ironically, perhaps, since I only lived there for two years (or maybe the connection was causal, who knows), I had occasion to need an abortion during my time in Jackson. I had to make two trips to Birmingham, five hours each way, in order to gain access to a medical abortion, which was not then, and I'm sure is not now, available in Mississippi. I could only do this because I had the means.

The pro-choice majority in places like DC, New York, and the Bay Area often don't get it that in places like Mississippi, abortion is considered verboten. When I went to the doctor for a pregnancy test, they fully assumed that abortion was not an option. It was an awkward thing to have to tell them that I wouldn't be back for a sonogram at eight weeks, after all.

Abortion is a gray issue if there is one -- full of moral ambiguity. As someone who has had one, I recognize this. But Roy and his ilk, even more than my own experience, convince me over and over again that abortion must remain legal if women's equality is to be achieved.

In a spectacular show of Southern Baptist hypocrisy (I was raised one, was at most of the definitive Conventions of the 80's.) The self-righteous of Mississippi are doing a great job of harassing clinics that serve women seeking a choice.

Casinos, which Southern Baptists (After all, the folks in charge are either Southern Baptist or belong to sects that consider the Southern Baptists as a little bit too liberal for their tastes) historically have had even more of an opposition too, however, are flourishing.

It would have been very helpful to know what the consequences have been (if any information is available) of the effective elimination of abortion as a right for Mississippians.

Have the number of back-alley abortions gone up? Are more women dying from botched amateur abortions? Are damaged children being born?

On a more subtle level, the article mentions that Mississippi has the highest number of teen births in the United States. Have those numbers gone up as access to abortions has decreased? If so, by how much, compared to state-wide population growth or shrinkage?

Has the number of children living in poverty gone up? On welfare? Using food stamps? Suffering malnutrition? How about the number of families with children living in poverty, or lacking health care?

We need to know these things.

The loss of abortion rights will have consequences, presumably. Consequences that the government and the religious right will want to keep out of the mainstream media, which is all too likely to cooperate in a tacit conspiracy of silence.

Photographs of dead and bloody cheerleaders don't sell newspapers, after all. And they're a lousy lead-in for a commercial break, as any perky morning-news anchorperson can tell you.

On the other hand, if there ARE no negative results from the loss of abortion rights, we need to know that, too.

Please complete the story, or at the least stay with the issue and provide follow-up information.

I find it sad that women's "rights" are always spoke of in reference to our ability to kill our unborn children. I also find it sad that a woman's convenience, emotions, finances, etc. are more important than a human beings right to live. Not all progressive-minded female readers of Salon are automatically pro-abortion. It would be nice to see more balance on this site in regards to this issue. Maybe the women in Mississppi will take more responsibility for the expression of their sexuality if they cannot so easily discard of their "mistakes" (and no, this is not in reference to rape victims, incest.)Woman have the right to choose - it's called birth control and self-control.

mpakron states that not all women reading Salon are pro-abortion. That would be correct. I'm not pro-abortion, either, but I totally support a woman's right to make that determination for herself. mpakron states that in cases of incest or rape an abortion is OK. But where is that woman to go? How will she be able to afford to get to the one open clinic? And what happens when that clinic closes? I've just given a donation to the Jackson Clinic. I hope others do, too.

There is no such thing as a pro-abortion movement. That's a mistruth (like partial birth instead of late term) put forward by the right wing to frame the issue in ways favorable to them.

Pro-abortion would mean doctors hanging outside clubs on Saturday night offering their cards to couples stumbling out, or Planned Parenthood trying to sell the idea of how great an abortion is to pregnant women, which doesn't happen anywhere.

Pro-choice means regardless of what your personal opinion on abortion is, it's important to leave the ultimate choice up to the woman who's pregnant. If an individual is against having an abortion, that's their right to make that decision. But it doesn't give them the right to make the decision for anyone else.

It'd be great to see the women's organizations (as well as guys like me who support individual choice) have more success clarifying these misconceptions among those who are undecided or flexible in their opinion on the subject.