Cartoonist not happy with North Dakota’s new abortion laws
The fetal heartbeat bill passed in North Dakota might not survive a legal challenge, but other radical laws may have the effect of shutting down the state’s lone abortion clinic.
So, poor desperate women of North Dakota: you may as well just give up and kick back at Preggers, where every night is Ladies Night.
~ Cartoonist Jen Sorensen “inviting” women with unplanned pregnancies to Preggers, the fictitious bar for pregnant women depicted in her political cartoon (pictured, click to enlarge), Jen Sorensen, March 25

Sad. They must demean pregnancy – and make the unborn child seem unreal – in order to make their point.
It would be better if the cartoonist aimed her message to EMPOWER women…by focusing on job parity, wisdom in relationships with men (as men are known to have helped cause pregnancies :) ).
This made absolute sense to me. Diapers from the Doctor is a wonderful gift. Learning about what to expect while your expecting will focus on the wonder of motherhood.
So, was that supposed to be funny, or something?
Between this guy and Gary Trudeau, it seems that cartoon ists just don”t handle abortion related stuff very well.
LOL those all sound like great ideas to me. :D
Women don’t have to jump through any hoops. Instead they can get the help they need in bringing their child to birth, to either keep or adopt. There are options and the help is out there, in spite of what the abortion industry, which is only after their money, tries to tell them.
If the abortion industry is really so concerned about “a woman’s choice” and “women’s rights”, and making abortion “safe, legal and rare”, this wouldn’t be a problem for them. But as I said that’s not what they care about. Some of the workers might, but not the industry as a whole. For them the bottom line is the mighty dollar.
And what happened to cartoons actually being funny? There is nothing funny about political correctness, and there is nothing funny about using comics to promote the slaughter of millions of helpless, innocent human beings.
“If a woman doesn’t own a time-traveling DeLorean, maybe she shouldn’t be putting out”.
— or try —
“If a woman isn’t in a relationship in which she’s open to the possibility of becoming pregnant, maybe she shouldn’t be putting out.”
Jen – why use the language of pregnancy?:
(emphasis mine)
First, let’s clear the elephant out of the room – okay? The mother-to-be is a woman who, having had intercourse, has a fluid and unobstructed path for conception. When a woman is diagnosed as being pregnant that means she’s already a mother. Simple medical fact. And once a mother – always a mother. That too is a simple medical fact.
So Jen, what are these mothers expecting? A puppy or kitten? A small parasitical rodent? I don’t think any serious doctor would acknowledging she is carrying anything other than a nascent human being. (And if people really want to go to a non-serious doctor, then I suggest they look up Kermit Gosnell.)
Do you really think discovering a child and ruling out an ectopic via a transvaginal ultrasound transducer is more invasive than someone using a sharpened cannula and vacuum aspiration?
For someone claiming to be a cultural pan-opticon you seem pretty blind to basic facts. BTW – the word pan-opticon – I do not think it means what you think it means.
I suppose I should have said “this lady” instead of “this guy”. Whatever.
That’s no lady.