Ther have been follow up studies showing that the same percentage of women who birthed and gave up for adoption had the same kinds of sorrow, feelings of guilt, and self negation as those who aborted electively. I have seen no study since abortions are done with medications at home but would guess that for many women the sorrow would still be real. I support termination of pregnancy with counseling before and if needed after such procedures, but the state of "health care" now is not capable of doing what women may need, with the exception of clinics like Planned Parenthood. To forbid the procedure is just another piece of evidence that our society is shifting to the desire for power and control and leaving empathy and kindness behind. Do you feel that happening?
Women have a right to bodily autonomy. Full stop. "Counseling before and if needed after such procedures" is an unnecessary burden placed on more than half the population.
Culturally, for many centuries, masturbation was forbidden. This was due to the association of masturbation with witchcraft and wizardry -- acting to compel others through implanting and cultivating thoughts and urges, often as the target slept.
Elle, I agree counseling is a burden if required by the state, but perhaps it should be freely provided on demand as part of a system of universal healthcare to anyone who feels the need for it.
No matter how well-meaning the idea of counseling might be for women seeking abortions, I see it as the assumption that an abortion is wrong and the woman will regret it. The reasons for seeking an abortion range from simple to highly complex. These reasons are none of your business and the obsession with the need for counseling would be best channeled somewhere else. What Elle said: women...bodily autonomy...full stop!
Yep. This. I am about to say something that the men in this conversation might not want to hear, but here it is. Until MEN are LEGALLY MADE RESPONSIBLE for impregnating women--since it does require the insemination of male sperm to cause a pregnancy--they should SHUT UP. But because the lawmakers and judges who have decided to police women's bodies on everything from the contents of their uteruses to the clothing they wear (I'm talking about YOU, Missouri legislature!!!!) are overwhelmingly male and the women who belly up to the boyz bar are doing so because it advantages them personally and professionally--a situation known in my academic circles as the patriarchal bargain--men will never have to answer for the fact that THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR PREGNANCY. The late great Gerda Lerner, riffing off of Frederick Engels' 1890 essay On the Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State, in her book The Creation of Patriarchy identifies the sexual enslavement of women in order to guarantee paternity (something Engels pointed out--women were the first humans to be "owned" by men) as the origins of imperialism, the enslavement of others, and ultimately fascism and all its inherent racist and misogynist systems. Gerda's work is a bit problematic in some of the ways she presented the pre-modern past (she was not well versed in the kinds of sources we in the feminist historian community use) and her argument was not particularly nuanced, but it is a compelling one.
So men: shut up. If you're an ally, BE AN ALLY and shut up. Preventing women's bodily autonomy is the last bastion of the autocracy of males. It is time for them to shut up, stop arguing with women, stop mansplaining about women's bodies, and get out of our way.
This is one of the issues that makes me furious. Really, really furious. And see above re: the patriarchal bargain if you want to argue with me about women who are joining the boyz to try to prevent women's bodily autonomy.
My son, a pastor, says men are responsible for every abortion. Until men understand they are complicit for unwanted pregnancies, the law recognizes and demands men be held accountable, women will be owned by men who decide what they can and cannot do with their lives. This was part a of a conversation we had.
Jesus doesn’t address abortion in the New Testament, at all. So that’s a big fat lie.
I do not participate in organized religion (weird, since my son was called to serve). But, I feel organized religion is responsible for wars, hate, persecution and false prophets in it for personal gain, and of course political power. So I completely disregard the religious aspect of this acute nonsense of control of one human being by another.
Women, we’re not demanding that something be done about men’s testicles! We need to start seriously discussing requirements for vasectomies for all men. After all, strict requirements for abortion are required for all women. There is a way to greatly reduce unwanted pregnancies. Stop the sperm, there’s way more sperm than eggs in the first place. Hey! New slogan! STOP THE SPERM!
I’m with you, Linda. As well-meaning as our male colleagues may be, it is hard to believe they truly understand the fundamental horror of being forced to carry a pregnancy against your will. Especially by the (MAGA-driven) State. Positively dystopian.
Back in the 70s, I had 2 abortions. I did not require counseling and in fact, I have read many times that women who choose abortion rarely need counseling before or afterwards. Indeed, men need to shut up. They have no right to interfere with a decision that isn't theirs to make. It's interesting that there is so much misogyny behind the "compassion" many men exhibit in their need to somehow make women who have abortions into victims who need professional counseling. Sorry, David Herrick, but please check yourself, ok?
Wow. What a fascinating discussion. The men on this page are attempting to show support for women. Of course they can't feel or know what a pregnancy or an abortion feels like. But telling 50% of the population to "shut up" and generalizing about their possible behavior or possible beliefs is bewildering to me.
Lumping "men" together is insulting and unproductive. The men here are probably going to be the men who will campaign for and vote for a women's right to reproductive freedom. And you don't think they should have a voice? Really?
Turning away the goodwill and the help of fellow humans suggest that you possibly have another agenda. Not sure what that is.
We are here to help. And you are not going to shut us up.
Sorry, I'm a male and I won't "shut up." Yet, wouldn't it be nice to remove male judges and legislators from the decision making process regarding freedom to choose? Just imagine if there were laws that controlled when and if men could have vasectomies? "Just try it, lady!" they would scream, as they unholster their pistols.
More women in the world need a safe place. There are 6 Matriarchal Societies Around the World. The Umoja tribe in Kenya created a village in 1990 as home to women who have experienced sexual or gender-based violence. Will American women who want to be safe have to start their own country?
One more voice in this chorus agreeing 100% with Linda. Let's be fair and recognize the many compassionate, empathic men that support women and their right to bodily autonomy. Unfortunately they seem to be in the minority. The rest, butt out of this discussion. You have no idea what you're talking about.
Well.. (Linda Mitchell - KCMO) I sure won't interrupt, but I will speak up. And I share in your words. Only area you didn't cover is the religion factor in all this. Since 1954 when we were decreed to be "under god".., women subrogated the right to privacy. Comment on that one.
I am in awe at the complexity and passion of response to the idea of offering counseling to any woman who might want it as part of her decision whether or not to end a pregnancy. The idea that this offering assumes that an abortion is wrong has a flip and harmful side: that women shouldn't have any mixed feelings about ending a pregnancy, and that if they do, they are somehow not truly liberated.
I was a nun for five years from 1963-1968, and when I left, I encountered women at booths in shopping malls advocating for legal abortion. I was appalled; didn't they know abortion was murder? But after a few discussions about why they were doing this work, I learned that when abortion is illegal, rich women (and the mistresses of rich men) fly to where it is legal and poor women and girls die, murdered by bad law. So while I might not ever have chosen to have an abortion myself, I fully support reproductive choice and am appalled at how Republicans have turned this debate into yet another cynical grab for power.
At the same time, I have had several discussion with a young woman who is very dear to me, who, years after a very difficult decision to have an abortion, still experiences regret and even guilt at that decision. Her emotional state is no less worthy of respect and support, which may need to include counseling, than that of a woman who is able to make this decision more easily and without regret. Full stop. (I debated adding "full stop" as too snarky, but somehow it felt right.)
Terry, I know very few women who have made the decision easily. Even when the right, or even only possible decision, it is usually not easy. And I've worked in women's healthcare for decades. There is no right or wrong reason, only the one they make. All of us live with our decisions. Autonomy requires that we be able to make them free of judgment. And yes, counseling in support of autonomous decision is a valuable goal. Maybe if we ever achieve universal health care, we can achieve equitable access to mental, as well as physical, care.
We all make decisions we wrestle with, and some we look back and wish we could rethink. Thank you for supporting your young friend.
Chaplain Terry, I appreciate your willingness to learn and to grow in wisdom. I think that some women truly "need" counseling and emotional support during this time. Of course it shouldn't be a "requirement"; that's just plain stupid. But to have it available for those who need it is necessary and humane.
I hope she gets the help she seeks and is able to internalize the fact that guilt is a useless thing. It largely arises from manmade religious ideology. Religion would serve its practitioners much better by focusing on tolerance.
I think when some women feel total relief after an abortion, there are other women who feel regret or maybe guilt. Women’s feelings about this issue are complex. It’s not an either or could be both.
I'm replying to myself because from the many comments below, it looks like I was not as clear as I might have been in response to the notion that offering counseling to women choosing to have an abortion assumes that there is something wrong with that choice.
What I was trying to say is that there is a harmful flip side to that notion, and that is that it implies that if a women does have mixed feelings or conflict about ending a pregnancy she's not as autonomous or "liberated" as a woman who does not.
I included the story of my dear young friend because she is quite autonomous and intelligent and she still deals with regret over her decision, especially regret that it was necessary at the time.
I have seen in my own life as well as in the lives of many family and friends the wounding that can happen to people when their feelings are judged in any way. Actions can and in some cases should be judged. But feelings need breathing room and acceptance if they are to flow through us rather than get stuck.
I have just returned to DC from 18 days in NYC with my sister who spent her last days in the hospital and died on Jan 20. So HCR's newsletter of 1/21 is the first I've read in that time. My sister was fiercely independent so it seemed fitting that I would have the opportunity to comment on the topic of women's autonomy and reproductive freedom while mourning her death.
I am in full support of your core concept. But abortion and healthcare services are everyone's business. You denigrate David who is not implying anything you are suggesting. While I am disgusted that so many of these decisions have been made by "old white guys", it would seem to be unproductive to alienate the "old white guys" like me who are in full support of your goals.
As you say, the decision can be highly complex. Offering professional help for free as part of a National Healthcare System is hardly invasive - it is the essence of social support. And there is absolutely no implication in such a system that "that an abortion is wrong and the woman will regret it." Couldn't a woman have an abortion for any of multiple legitimate reasons...and still feel like she wants to talk about it? Let's go back to your phrase "highly complex".
True, the decision by a woman to terminate a pregnancy or not should be entirely hers. And a compassionate civilized society would provide the full range of care for the procedure and any counseling the woman may ask for - or not.
We all vote on such stuff. I raise my voice in support of universal health care - for everyone. And that includes the full range of mental health needs. And frankly, don't we need men's votes to get there?
KathyF, your response to my comment shows that you need to learn to read more slowly and carefully before answering rudely.
I do not think abortion is wrong or that women will regret it, though I suppose some might, just as some might reasonably see it as a liberation. Every situation is unique.
Also, I do not suffer from any obsession I am aware of, with the possible exception of being told abortion is none of my business and that I should turn my thoughts elsewhere. It is definitely my business that the same people trying to limit a woman's right to an abortion will also likely try to limit other rights I hold dear.
So yes, "women and bodily autonomy!" But please spare me the "full stop".
David, there was nothing rude about Kathyf’s response. Presuming a need for pre/post abortion counseling plays into the hands of those who claim disingenuously that abortion is immoral and therefore a psychological burden.
The psychological burden is a fabrication of the unnecessary debate itself. Just as there is no other-side-ism to slavery, there is no other-side-ism to bodily autonomy. Forced labor after all is slavery.
Somehow, this conversation makes me think about “well-meaning” efforts of conversion therapy. While sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression aren’t the same as pregnancy, per se, the message is similar.
Absolutely Diane! And the definition of ally-ship in the LGBTQ+ community is not to "heterosplain," talk over people, claim to know better, etc. They ask allies to shut up and listen respectfully. The fact is that men--gay or straight but especially straight white men--are so rarely told to shut up and listen that they get their knickers in a twist when someone does so--especially if it is someone who is not white and/or is in possession of a uterus. If you are female, not straight, and/or not white, being told to "shut up and listen" is often an everyday occurrence. But yet again: the men who are protesting too much on this thread are doing so because they seem to feel that their very existence gives them rights that we don't have. And they're lousy listeners.
I must disagree that the idea of counseling constitutes an assumption that an abortion is wrong. Choosing abortion can be an emotionally wrenching decision and experience for some, though not all, women. An assumption that seeking counseling implies that a "woman has done something wrong" perpetuates the anti-abortion claims that having an abortion is automatically wrong, and simply piles on that attitude to a woman who has made a very difficult decision. Counseling must, however, be a matter of personal choice just as the decision to have an abortion should be.
Let me try to shed more light on my comment. It is the anti-abortionists who use counseling to try and persuade women against having an abortion because they think it is wrong. I fully support a woman's right to choose and support them should they want help in deciding. However, especially with the overturning of Roe v Wade, counseling, sometimes mandatory, can be a minefield of misinformation. Those of us who are pro-choice have let the anti-abortion movement frame abortion as one so fraught with emotional difficulties, it cannot be survived without counseling. While this is true for some women, I think studies tend to show that most women are able to make the decision without major difficulties and abortion is not linked to mental health difficulties. See two such studies: https://www.ansirh.org/sites/default/files/publications/files/mental_health_issue_brief_7-24-2018.pdf and https://www.apa.org/monitor/2022/09/news-facts-abortion-mental-health
A burden? It's imposing upon a woman someone else's idea of how she should handle her feelings surrounding a pregnancy. Women are very well acquainted with the strong feelings surrounding any pregnancy.
I am discouraged and completely baffled that men continue to weigh in on this subject.
You know what, Barbara? Besides agreeing with both you and Linda and many women who have commented, I say this.
I am so tired of defending women’s rights. Who decided we have to DEFEND our rights? And always in an “acceptable” fashion that does not anger anyone or make them feel guilty.
Defending our rights obviously implies someone, somewhere… tried to change or take away those rights.
I will not defend the right to speak of something that IS inherently my right….my body.
I will promote the right of every human to make personal decisions about their bodies. Whether I agree with it or not.
Allow me an example…. I no sooner would weigh in on the emotional or social “correctness” of vasectomies than the man in the moon. Or any trauma associated with it. What do I know of that? I just want that choice available and safe for any man.
Why is it the patriarchal bargain has always been to lead and decide for both genders?
Agree Christine. Thanks for your post. It is beyond infuriating and exhausting that men continue to weigh in on women's issues.
I was thinking of any time there was a totally male issue and what I did with my opinion. Then this memory came. During the Vietnam War there was the draft and also conscientious objectors. Given that I wasn't subject to being drafted I withheld any opinion on the issue.
And yes. I don't talk to men about their vasectomies either.
We (Men) "weigh in" because you women don't put up a united front. You tend to be your own worst enemy. You need us and we need you. But, I have to admit.., sometimes when I look in the mirror I see that I too have nipples and have to wonder if......
Ooops there’s that ‘four letter’ word again Universal healthcare! The maga cult leaders including Leo p Leo. Of the Federalist cabal prefer to have states under fund public education, why would they support Universal health care?
Consideration of the general well being (including mental health) of every patient relative to many procedure would be the ideal for exemplary health care. Even having a colonoscopy can be stressful and frightening. My main point though - I had an abortion of a 3rd pregnancy while married to protect the fragile family I already had. NO REGRETS. Many of my friends terminated pregnancies - NO REGRETS. I'd love to see any real data on post abortion regret in women. I would wager far more just move on with their lives - but maybe society will judge them as cruel while society prefers to judge women with regret as pitiful. Lose/lose for women again.
"The female?"A female horse is a mare. A female pig is a sow. A female chicken is a hen. A female human is a woman. If we're going to dignify animals by using the terms specific to them, can we not afford the same dignity to women?
Abortion is a medical procedure. It is one tool that enables women and their doctors to provide comprehensive health care. Jessica Valenti says pregnancy is to complex to legislate. I feel infuriated that a legislative body thinks it has the right to interfere in a person's healthcare decisions.
Full stop, in deed! Without the Right to control decisions pertaining to their bodies, women are relegated to second class status! Sammie Alito and his like minded and demented members of Roberts’ sham court are apex on our society!
This has been quite an exchange of opinions and ideas! Very, very captivating today! We’ve all done well with articulating our thoughts and feelings. Do we all agree if legislation exists that prohibits all women freedom regarding reproductive rights, should there not also exist legislation regarding men’s reproductive accountability? We can’t have “Johnny Spermseed”
impregnating women willy nilly with no accountability any longer. Or victims of abuse who must prove they’ve been assaulted by a male? That’s been the way of things and will continue until we WOMEN demand accountability from men. They must be forced to use reliable birth control, and have their lives legally affected by their irresponsibility when they do not. It’s what’s being demanded of us women. This must become a 2 way street. Demand male accountability. It’ll be good for all of us.
Agreed, but let's get the US Government to agree that women are entitled to equal rights under the law as a first step, tell President Biden to sign the already ratified Amendment 28 into the Constitution.
This is the email I sent the President: Dear Mr. President.
In 2020 we finally ratified Amendment 28 guaranteeing women Equal Rights under the Law, when Virginia ratified the ERA Amendment 28. All this law does is agree what is scientifically proven, we are all Homo sapiens, there are no sub-species and therefore both genders are entitled to equal recognition. The overturn over Roe v Wade merely amplifies the current status of inequality
Here's another approach. Before justices or legislators can be eligible to vote on an abortion ban, even in cases in which underage girls are raped, they must do the following. Get violently, anally raped by a stranger or family member and have the attacker's semen lodged in a large capsule up their rectum. At the end of nine months, perhaps with new found perspective, they may cast their vote.
Do you believe that a woman should be permitted to terminate a pregnancy—other than by early delivery through caesarean section or medical inducement—if she is 8 1/2 months pregnant with an apparently healthy fetus? Is so, you are in a very small minority. At some point, almost everyone agrees, society has a sufficient interest in the child to limit the mother’s options, just as it does by forbidding infanticide after the child is born.
The hard question is where, during pregnancy, to draw the line.
A woman who carries a pregnancy to 8.5 months does NOT decide to terminate said pregnancy on a whim. If you'd read statistics you'd know that a decision to abort at that stage is because of fetal abnormality inconsistent with life after birth, or extreme risk to the mother's health or life. Butt out!
Of course not. My point was simply that at SOME point society has a right to regulate what may happen to the fetus. For me, as I have explained elsewhere on this string, the court got it pretty much right in Roe, with the viability standard. And the fact that I am male (and a father of two daughters, if you care) does not mean that the societal interest is not there? (Pardon the double-negative.)*
And my point is that, no, at no point does "society" ( read: religion, patriarchy, what-ever) have a right to impose their "interests" upon this decision or its process. Hard no.
My point was that at some point the issue becomes one that is no longer purely personal. Society does have a legitimate interest. Do you believe that that is never true?
An 8 1/2 month pregnancy would be a live induced birth, not an abortion. You are confusing the delivery of a healthy fetus with a late term abortion, which is performed if the fetus is found not to be viable due to extreme abnormalities. In other words, healthy fetuses are never aborted at 8 1/2 months.
My illustration was extreme, but there is a point where most people would agree that society has an interest in what happens to the fetus/nascent child. When should that be? My own view is that the court got it pretty much right in Roe: when the fetus becomes viable outside the womb. That standard is only a guideline. There will be a debate over at what point viability occurs. And should it depend on whether the child could be cared for in a neonatal ICR? Should it make a difference whether the mother is a mature woman who could care for the child, or a teen for him caring for such a tiny infant would be too much to bear? I don't have answers to such questions. But I do believe that there is a time before birth when the likelihood of an independent life is sufficient for the state to set standards, even if I can't say exactly when that is.
Ew. A "mature woman" can't abort because she "can care for the child"? Here we go again. And not a word in your comment about the father!
You should try to recognize your own misogyny before you talk about "standards," namely that the state's "standards" are based in 2,000 years of misogyny and control of women.
Sorry to have caused such a ruckus. I should have said "offering non-mandatory counseling if requested." I really did not mean to imply mandatory counseling. No, I don't think all men need counseling before vasectomy, but there are some people, of all genders, who imagine they will have no regrets before abortion or sterilization who do not do so well after the procedures. Absolutism is not always the best policy, I certainly would hope people see that.
Where does this right come from? Where in general do rights come from? In the collective mind of the Founders, reflecting the Natural Law tradition of their schooling and reflected in the Declaration of Independence, rights are derived from duties.
This is also reflected in the wording of the Second Amendment: Men had the DUTY to bring their guns to militia training, so of course they had a right to own a gun. (And regarding the right of Black men -- Union veterans in the deep South -- to bear arms as part of a county militia, look up the Colfax Massacre.)
Thank you for the Founding Father background info! Lest we not forget, these men did NOT include women in the list of those who can vote! They get credit for negotiating to form The United States of America, but not for their lack of understanding of their phrase ‘All men (?) are created equal’ ! Indeed they did not consider men of color to be equal and the omission of women in their statement clearly was not unintended!
Frank, when you get pregnant, you can go through counseling, or any other hoop of fire you choose to jump through. Until then, mind your own business. Stop with your opinions of what you think women should have to submit to before being allowed to have a surgical procedure. How dare you.
DLM - Frank posted this to clarify his earlier post because so many, like yourself, made assumptions due to his less-clearly articulated original post:
"Frank Mitchell Jan 22
Sorry to have caused such a ruckus. I should have said "offering non-mandatory counseling if requested." I really did not mean to imply mandatory counseling. No, I don't think all men need counseling before vasectomy, but there are some people, of all genders, who imagine they will have no regrets before abortion or sterilization who do not do so well after the procedures. Absolutism is not always the best policy, I certainly would hope people see that."
High quality therapeutic counseling should be readily available to all who need or want it; it should not be a condition for access to reproductive health care.
I would be interested in studies related to the emotional reactions of the men who participated in creating the pregnancy. Of course, I’m talking about accountability, which is largely left out of all of this mishigas.
Frank, I agree with much of what you say, with the exception of "counseling." That word suggests that women are not intelligent enough to make such a decision on their own, and I find that offensive and paternalistic.
Frank, not to be rude, but using the word "studies" is a red herring. Name those studies, please, and note if they come from biased sources. Also, there are so many reasons for mood problems before, during and after pregnancy. What are the fluctuations of hormones, for example? What are the environmental influences at home?
Although your comment is concerned about women (thank you), nevertheless it is still advocating "control" in some way; an assumption of a woman's "need.".
But yes, there is a tidal wave of desperate attempts to return to a time of straight, white male supremacy (and of the women who support them.) Just look at Putin and Trump, for a prime example.
When was the last time it was recommended on the national stage that men get counseling? This counseling thing plays right into the age old "hysterical woman" patriarchy.
"Hyster" is the Latin word for uterus. Really, are men required to get counseling before a vasectomy? Throughout the ages women have been portrayed as confused, overly emotional, immature, stupid, flighty, shrill, bitter, etc.
True! Just what if all men were required to get counseling? Perhaps there would be much less violence in our society. No mass shootings with weapons of mass destruction. No domestic violence. No rapes, possibly no religion!! No superiority complex...ah, well....I have a dream...
Through the NIH national library of medicine one can access several articles, a very comprehensive review being:
SAGE Open Med. 2018; 6: 2050312118807624.
Published online 2018 Oct 29. doi: 10.1177/2050312118807624: Title is:
The abortion and mental health controversy: A comprehensive literature review of common ground agreements, disagreements, actionable recommendations, and research opportunities
That is actually a far more recent review than I recall . I used to keep a file of all the articles I read, but when I retired from practice of medicine I sent them to the recycle bin. My apologies and to those who think this is not anything a man should be talking about, I beg your indulgence. I was born male and have not decided in 79 years to change that.
Okay, Frank, thank you. I want to be clear that you can make recommendations, of course. My point is that men should be much more sensitive to "prescribing" for women. We really are capable of self-care and decisions about our reproductive health. Stating a well-thought-out opinion is one thing. Making a determination for women is another.
With that statement I agree wholeheartedly. I always looked at medical care as a partnership between information seeker and information "repository". Part of it was learning early on that "giving orders" didn't work at all for nearly anyone. (Communication theory - a book authored by a guy named Watzlawick - helped find alternatives.) Would that that were the norm, which I think has been one of the reasons that women in the nurse practitioner roles are gaining popularity and revolutionizing primary care.
Interesting post, Frank. In the 70s, pre-Roe, two young women in my dorm had illegal abortions. One brushed it off but the other was suicidally depressed. I had read that post-part depression can occur following either a birth or an abortion (due to the enormous changes in hormones), and I believed a lack of post-abortion care during the days of illegal abortion nearly caused this young woman’s death.
Or it could have been her mental state going into the abortion in the first place. Or it could have been her mental state from her upbringing, boyfriend issues, etc etc etc.
Requiring abortion counseling is abusive and invasive.
Counseling would probably be helpful in the case of any pregnancy: giving birth and becoming responsible for a human life is a forever life-altering decision.
And as far as adoption as an option: I don’t see how that is even comparable - carrying a pregnancy to term and then separating from the infant. Definitely need counseling there.
Thank you, Jeanne. Many birth mothers, and adoptees, suffer lifelong trauma of relinquishment.Although according to the Repubs, it’s all unicorns and rainbows…
We will more than forgive you any error you make because you correct them. And you must know how much we, (I know I can speak for most of your subscribers) love your "letters". I can't wait to read them and appreciate them more than I can say. So, thank you, thank you for your terrific "letters". The are brilliant and educational.
Heather No problem with Blackmun’s name.. And if you mess up the names of a number of current Supreme Court justices, your readers would only nod or even applaud.
Nowhere in HCR's survey is there any mention of the legal or constitutional basis for the federal judiciary to take the power to regulate or ban abortion away from the people of the various states, acting independently through their representatives within each state's sovereign jurisdiction.
In particular, the questionable constitutional doctrine of substantive due process continues to be ignored.
I will always remain gobsmacked at the sheer hypocrisy of a political party--a party that supposedly stands for smaller government and less government intervention in our lives--when it basically inserts itself in a woman's uterus (apologies for being graphic) and decides IT knows what is best for how it is to be used. That's "intervening" in someone's life about as much as is humanly possible. And that in a majority of the cases it is MEN who do this is "de klap op de vuurpijl" (a Dutch expression I can't really translate, but is similar to "the straw that broke the camel's back"). Funny how they accuse Democrats of meddling in everyone's lives, yet when they do it--essentially ramming their Christo-fascist morality down our collective throats--suddenly it's okay. I guess they didn't learn anything from their losses in the last election, and pundits point to abortion as being an issue that motivated a lot of Democratic and Progressive voter turnout. Weren't they paying attention?? Never mind...we'll just keep harping on it until '24 and see what happens then, won't we?
“Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to 9 months. After that, they don’t wanna know about you. They don’t wanna hear from you. No nothing! No neonatal care, no daycare, no Head Start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothing. If you’re pre-born, you’re fine, if you’re preschool, you’re f@#ked.”
Exactly. If they were pro child USA would offer world class pre and postnatal healthcare care and universal day care. But sadly they are not pro child at all
"Small government" was always Newspeak for increasing government resources and access for Republican patrons and clients, and shrinking benefits and access for everyone else. No? Republicans put a hell of a lot of money and effort into dominating "government" they claim to hate. The are pleased as punch with impunity for them and their cohort, and heavy-handed subjugation of others, foreign or domestic.
And then on the news tonight I see that slimy, simpering, overly oleaginous Mike Pence talking (smarmily boasting was more like it) about attending the Pro-Life rally in DC and hearing him talk about "we have to continue fighting for the sanctity of life..." I found myself screaming at the TV, "IF YOU REALLY BELIEVE IN THE SANCTITY OF LIFE, YOU SORRY SACK OF SHIT, THEN WHAT ABOUT GETTING RID OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT?!?!? THOSE LIVES DON'T MATTER?!?!?" Life is life, you know. So you grant it for a zygote of a few cells and not for a fully formed, sentient human being?? But then again, I *THINK* we can figure out why "pro-lifers" conveniently forget about people on death row...now let me see...what could it be?? Hmmm...
GOP has a deep sincere abiding faith in the sanctity of all life...that is why they sooo vigorously support and want to expand...paid maternity leave, SNAP to fight child hunger, free school lunches, robust pre/post natal healthcare via Obamacare, mental health programs for those at risk of taking their own life, gun control to lessen the 45,000 who die of gun violence annually, $15 minimum wage so parents can feed their kids, subsidize daycare and increased taxes on the wealthy while reducing taxes on the middle class so they can feed their children.
The "sanctity of life" was apparently not worth a needle jab or putting on a mask to reduce the chance of spreading a deadly disease. The COVID virus is a real piece of work, but it lacks legs. We have to lend it ours, and being clueless or selfish is a real booster for it's travels.
Seeing the diferences that all these things can make in the life of a family, particularly a mother and her child (our FUTURE) is amazing. Some of these kids have said that the free lunch is their only meal of the day. How many of those not supporting all of the above go to bed hungry? None I imagine.If we could just magically eliminate all the guns (sorry hunters), provide food for those that need it, and a clean, safe place to sleep for everyone, clean water to drink and bathe I think our country could finally move forward.
I agree except about hunters. ALL of the huntes I know or have known are responsible good folks who do an important job of culling our deer herds in Northern Michigan, and the venison is never wasted. In fact, several of our local hunters donate venison to the less fortunate.
First, thanks for not generalizing about hunters. Here's my take. Anyone who hunts or fishes for anything that is not an endangered species AND eats it should have our respect. It takes a lot of work. And in the case of deer...some think they are cute (they are) but they also are a factor in spreading Lyme Disease (I've had it more than once - you don't want it). And venison is tasty.
But I think everyone here would agree that it doesn't take an AR-15 or an AK-47 to kill a deer. Those were designed to shoot bullets that do more than penetrate a body. They are designed to destroy flesh. Ask anyone working in an ER.
Yes. All my hunter friends are opposed to AR & AK and such assault weapons. They shoot ONE bullet, and in the most humane way. I have 2 friends with long term Lyme. Absolutely awful suffering.
You did see I corrected my comment ?It was magical thinking, wanting to stop SO much violence Hunters in many places are definitely helpful and part of the solution, not the problem My son- in - law is also an amazing fisherman And practices catch and release, etc And yes, hunters and fisherman I know share extras And NOTHING goes to waste
Hunters are just human. I have lived in VT, AK, and HI for 30 years. Lived on a cattle ranch for 13 years. I know plenty of hunters who get drunk and go shooting, who leave their weapons unsecured, threaten people with their guns, etc. ALL guns should be registered, classes taken, and gun owners held accountable for any harm caused by their weapons. And no civilian needs a military style weapon. In my humble opinion.
Some hunters are conservationist if only to preserve game, and some I've known are highly safety conscious. There is also the other kind. A former game warden I knew told me about multiple encounters with hunters he had asked if they had seen any game, and they replied, "no, but we shot at some noise".
To add to the pile rubbish the right uses to increase Fascism and the hypocrisy of the “right to life,” movement we can add focus on the impact of Theocracy on the very least of us; the poor and pregnant black females.
Can there be any more wretched a circumstance than being young, black and pregnant in any of the red states that forgoes Medicaid and prohibits abortion?
Add the anti-abortion Justice of places like Texas with Citizen Vigilante monitoring the facilities our desperate teen would seek help.
Is there any person with less freedom than any young black?
If Pence was so interested in the sanctity of life, why did he look in the camera and say Covid was under control, while hundreds of thousands of Americans were dead or dying.
Self-serving selective acknowledgement is a hallmark of fanatical thinking. I suspect we are all hypocrites to some degree; I know I am, but political extremists have a way of cutting a pasting fragments of reality in the way of some kidnappers who are said to cut random letters out of magazines, to fashion a ransom note.
I asked that question of a priest (now a bishop) and he said there are degrees of guilt. A fetus has none while an adult may, to which I say you better be damn sure the person is guilty of the crime. And you can’t be.
That's just it. Let's face it, killing someone is pretty damn final, and time after time there have been plenty of examples of people sitting on death row or serving time and things come to light to show they were, after all, innocent. We can say with a fair degree of certainty that there have, in all likelihood, been people who were put to death after having been wrongly accused and sentenced who were completely innocent. THAT, to me, is an even greater crime. Yes, there are degrees of guilt, but does it lie with us to be the arbiters of the punishment meted out for these degrees? Who decides what punishment is to go with which guilt? I prefer to leave that to God, the Universe, Karma, whatever. The Bible isn't always clear and gives conflicting signals, and besides, IS it really true and right to use something like a Bible, or any text for that matter, as the be all end all, when it comes to deciding life or death? Are we to presume SO much about ourselves that we feel WE, with ALL certainty, can deliver justice in the name of whatever our version of God might be? For myself, as a Christian, I feel in my heart of hearts that Jesus would not be for the taking of another life, for any reason. As for those that think a fetus is a life, I think Jesus would be most likely be responding from the Jewish belief that a person isn't a living, breathing, whole person until, after birth, they take their first breath, independent of the mother. In Old Testament belief, man became a living soul only after God breathed life into a lump of clay. As one of the 10 commandments says, we are not to kill. Well, okay, but kill what? I think that probably starts with us not killing each other and maybe proceeds from there. Who knows? I certainly do not presume to have answers, but I DO believe that the State, any state, should not be deciding life and death in such things. To me that is morally wrong. Just my Sunday morning ramblings...
It seems natural to have a thirst for justice. But some people seem to be satisfied to have a life extinguished in retribution for the crime of homicide, regardless of whether or not there is conclusive proof of guilt of the person accused of the crime. I think we should ignore the Biblical imperative of "a life for a life".
I rely on Rene Descartes for my sense of epistemology, for when I can say that I know **that** I know. He begins by observing that his senses can play tricks on his mind, such as seeing a mirage. His logic leads from being tricked by one thing, to possibly being tricked by almost everything, to the point where he can safely say he knows that he *knows* only one thing: "Cogito, ergo sum". I think, therefore I AM. I know that I exist, even if I can't say I know anything else. If I can only be certain in my mind that I exist, then I certainly cannot condemn someone to die. It should be enough to require the accused and convicted person to live in a prison cell, leaving open the possibility of exoneration in the future.
Over the course of my long life I have become convinced that "life", as we humans understand the term, is present in all of the lifeforms in our world, or at least those that don't send roots into the ground -- and I'm just not sure about the plants and the fungi. My view is that the effect of our human activity is responsible for an epochal mass extinction, currently underway, the sixth in the history of Earth, according to various scientists. There was a day and an hour in the spring of 1970 when I began to empathize with the plight of all living creatures. It stayed with me, and I changed my ways. Now I recognize signs of intelligence in various creatures. I try to live by the Golden Rule.
I'm reading "Speed and Scale" by John Doerr, which is an even-handed and sober discussion of how we humans might be able to adjust the way we live on Earth, toward ensuring that our home planet will still be habitable in a long-term future.
I think that too many people suffer from hubris. We have learned so much about our world and the greater universe in the past five hundred years or so that there is a tendency to think we already know everything we need to know. If we could manage to increase our national average humility quotient, our severe disagreements would surely become less strident. We might begin again to regard each other with more empathy and kindness. And we may not yet have an inkling about what the universe has in store for us, what might be heading our way. Instead of fighting with each other, like kids in the back seat of a car on a long road trip, we might want to turn our full attention toward the things we don't yet know about the universe in which we dwell.
I will always recall my horror at President Clinton returning to Arkansas to ensure the execution of a creature so bereft of intelligence he asked that the remains of his last supper be set aside so he finish after the ceremony.
I still think that single case of ridiculous revenge would have ended the death penalty.
'Most Abortion Bans Include Exceptions. In Practice, Few Are Granted' (excerpts from the NYTimes)
‘Last summer, a Mississippi woman sought an abortion after, she said, a friend had raped her. Her state prohibits most abortions but allows them for rape victims. Yet she could not find a doctor to provide one.’
‘In September, an Indiana woman learned that a fetal defect meant her baby would die shortly after birth, if not sooner. Her state’s abortion ban included an exception for such cases, but she was referred to Illinois or Michigan.’
‘The abortion bans enacted in about half the states since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June do not prohibit abortion entirely. Most make exceptions in certain circumstances, commonly to protect the health or life of the patient, or in the case of rape or incest. And as conservative state lawmakers prepare to take up new restrictions on abortion in upcoming legislative sessions, exceptions will be at the heart of the debate.’
‘But in the months since the court’s decision, very few exceptions to these new abortion bans have been granted, a New York Times review of available state data and interviews with dozens of physicians, advocates and lawmakers revealed.’
'Instead, those with means are traveling to states where abortion is still broadly legal or are obtaining abortion pills at home because the requirements to qualify for exceptions are too steep. Doctors and hospitals are turning away patients, saying that ambiguous laws and the threat of criminal penalties make them unwilling to test the rules.'
'A majority of Americans think abortion should be legal in most circumstances, and even those who otherwise oppose abortion generally support exceptions for rape and for health complications. But abortion-rights advocates say legal exceptions do nothing but make abortion bans appear more reasonable than they really are.'
'Even if Mississippi still had an abortion provider, the woman probably would not have qualified for the state’s rape exception. About a quarter of states that prohibit abortions include allowances for rape and incest victims, and nearly all of those, including Mississippi, require proof of an assault from a police report or a doctor’s note.'
'Anti-abortion advocates say that a police report is necessary to prove that an assault happened and to prevent providers from using the exception as a backdoor to access.'
“You need detailed laws for those that don’t want to obey the law,” Mr. Bopp said.
Those who work with sexual assault victims say a requirement to report to law enforcement is one of the steepest barriers for those who seek abortions. About two-thirds of victims do not report to law enforcement; many know their abuser and worry about the consequences.
Almost every state ban makes an exception when the pregnancy endangers the patient’s life, but three states — Idaho, North Dakota and Tennessee — have a stricter provision. In those states, the burden is on doctors to prove the patient’s life was in peril. In the other states, the burden would be on prosecutors to prove that it was not.'
'Bob Ramsey, a former Republican representative in Tennessee who opposes abortion, ultimately did not vote for the state’s ban because it did not contain explicit exceptions. In his view, some of his colleagues ignored warnings that the law would rattle doctors.'
“The confusion is actually an intent,” said Mr. Ramsey, who left office after losing a primary last year. “The more confusing it is, the more likely there will be no abortion in the state of Tennessee. That’s a win for people who are opposed to abortion.”
‘But abortion-rights advocates have warned for decades that exceptions would not work in practice. They point to the rare instances of patients being granted exceptions to the Hyde Amendment, which blocks federal Medicaid funding for abortion services.
And those on both sides of the issue say there may be no middle ground.’
‘Mary Ziegler, a law professor at the University of California, Davis, who specializes in the history of abortion, said, “What would seem workable to a lot of physicians or reproductive-rights supporters would look like a loophole to the pro-life movement.” (NYTimes)
And it does in TN. The chief RTL lobbyist in TN says: “We believe if the average Tennessean understood the legal difference between an affirmative defense and an exception and how minimal that is, they would support this law.” A doctor may attempt an affirmative defense—that the procedure was medically necessary—AFTER s/he is arrested, charged, and obtains defense counsel. And hopes the jury will agree. What sane doctor would risk a medical license and jail time in a plainly hostile state? Even if the hospitals’ s lawyer would let them proceed.
In July 2022, the UN women’s rights committee said that the United States is one of the only seven countries in the world that are not parties to the international convention that protects women’s human rights, including their right to sexual and reproductive health.
The Committee urged the United States of America to adhere to the Convention, which it signed in 1980 but has never ratified. In the light of the U.S. Supreme Court decision to strike down Roe v. Wade, the Committee expressed solidarity with women and girls in the United States. In addition, it called on all States parties to end criminalising abortion and allow legal abortion at least in cases of rape, incest, threats to life or health of the pregnant woman and girl, and severe foetal impairment."
They never learn, I remember such blather from 2012, and they doubled-down on Tea party insanity. These cretins are totally detached from the “GOP.’ It’s dead and buried in an undisclosed location. JFK was a model for how a Catholic politician should behave, so is Joe Biden. The power-hungry cretins of today outnumber any ethical religious group. Be very afraid. The inquisition has a majority in the SC…
An oxymoron. As your comment demonstrates. And it's all in service of relieving the unconscionably wealthy of the burdens of democracy - taxation, regulations, and social programs. Neil Gorsuch (who had he been ethical would have refused the nomination under the McConnell scheme) gives away the game. Before Dobbs, Gorsuch was notorious for his 'frozen trucker decision.' Where Gorsuch argued that a trucker, whose company's truck broke down in a snowstorm, should have frozen to death rather than leave the truck to seek shelter.
Nowhere in HCR's survey is there any mention of the legal or constitutional basis for the federal judiciary to take the power to regulate or ban abortion away from the people of the various states, acting independently through their representatives within each state's sovereign jurisdiction.
In particular, the questionable constitutional doctrine of substantive due process continues to be ignored.
Just reviewed substantive due process. Along with the 14th amendment which prohibits the government from depriving anyone of life, etc. That's what the states are doing with the draconian abortion laws saying a woman has less right to life than a few cells that may become a man -- let's just ignore that half of those cell masses will become women as second-class citizens.
I believe it is in the Ninth Amendment. The problem is we have no official way to clearly enumerate the rights that exist in the will of the People but are not named directly in the Constitution. The Founding Fathers were correct in anticipating they hadn't enumerated all the rights the People believe they should have -- like women's reproductive rights. I'd like to see a national resolution voted on by the entire voting populace enumerating this right. In the mean time there is no check on the states taking away that right, but then, why not, women aren't mentioned in the Constitution so the Supreme Court can just ignore the non-Y-chromosome half of the population and their rights. I'm going to ignore them in return! We, the People, all of us including women this time!
Am I alone in feeling that the available emojis on substack are greatly lacking ? Cathy, I do so love to read your input ! One of many bright spots for me to consider in this community. I don't think merely 'ignoring' the sotus will be enough, b/c the overly sensitive media, the far right (left and middle right too) will assure them the whole public platform as it's now mis-constructed. No, I think far more is demanded today and for the foreseeable future. For one thing, I believe mass demonstrations like what has been done towards the wrong wing sotus needs massive support; very public morale, finance, and legal support organized and executed. I saw where the Maryland neighborhoods where those cretins reside are trying to use the force of laws to prevent them demonstrating, as such they will need the aforementioned support. Organized dissent works; mass public shaming works. Observe how effective it's been used against the will of the majorities these past few decades... We now live in a country wherein the 'tail wags the whole dog.' Even a 'stub tail' wags the whole dog.
Where do "women's reproductive rights" come from? Do women (and men) have the right to have sex with whomever they want whenever they want, as long as it's consensual? The majority of our society today might think that way without thinking it through, but this was not the view of the Founders who wrote the Constitution. That brings up the question of constitutional "originalism" or not, which I'm not trying to get into.
You imagine a "national resolution voted on by the entire voting populance enumerating this right." The problem is, we're not a unitary nation where (for example) the President is at the top of the chain of command leading down to local police stations. We are a union of states (the "united states") that have retained elements of their sovereignty, including the collective right to separately decide on laws regarding abortion. Would you reform or abolish that?
EDIT: One last thought: Several months ago, when I was posting around here for about a month, people were inclined to get the wrong impression about where I'm at politically. In my view, the union of the fifty states is fragile and at risk, and a break-up of the union could well lead to something approaching the genocidal consequences that Russia suffered in the early 1990s (most of the old people got wiped out -- do you know any retired baby boomers who live on their social security checks?) when the Soviet Union broke up. (What happens to old people when high blood pressure medication suddenly becomes unavailable except for the wealthy?)
Yes, I understand there is no process for a national resolution. we can dream of sometime being a true democracy without representatives but a direct say. On the states, I'd like you to note that before the Civil War (or the War between the States if you'd like) one said "the United States are", after the Civil War one says "the United States is". Yes, our democracy is fragile. Yes, I see this extreme anti-socialism in the GOP a threat to my Social Security check which I look upon as return on the investment I made for decades paying into the Social Security system. I do enjoy how the "originalists had to quote a British guy from four centuries ago who believe in prosecuting witchcraft to come up with the "rationale" for Dobbs.
There are those who "understand" that witchcraft includes spiritual thuggery by means of collective masturbation. Do victims of witches exist as a category?
There are victims of witch hunts like TFG. I always wanted to correct that these aren't witch hunts. They are warlock hunts unless TFG is hiding his real pronouns! LOL!
They just piss me off SO much!! Their arrogance and blatant hypocrisy really get on my last nerve. It's like they are totally devoid of any memory. Oh well, we have to keep reminding them!
It's not memory that they're devoid of. They want the world to be what they want, and nothing else matters. To this end they can and will rationalize anything.
I’m with you Bruce. The hypocrisy is so blatant, yet their constituents seem blind to it. You say they are “devoid of any memory. “. I see it was devoid of any morality.
Oh I know...their infamy when it comes to rights is on a scale that is off the charts, but this one irks me especially. Five friends of mine endured abortions, abortions that tortured them then and still do now some 40+ years later. I was privy to what they went through as a friend and confidant--I used to wonder how I always got myself in such situations!--and to think that there are those who would think that these women made their decisions lightly. FAR from it. It also happened within my own family in the early '40s, a shocking revelation my mom confessed to me before she died (it wasn't her, though), but I was absolutely floored. I was also profoundly sad AND angry. With this experience I could not NOT be angry on behalf of women.
Thank you Janet; human rights in general, including all the body parts of all human beings not only the bilateral system of women all they way to the ovaries & the production therein. In CA we have an express right of Privacy in our State Constitution. In Michigan citizens have just lawfully gained the right to majority rule meaning in large part no gerrymandering period. You can see profound change now. Michigan will no longer be a target of contested issues or any bodily function. One person one vote.
One good sign I've noticed - and it just may be on MSNBC - is that the designation of the position "pro-life" has been changed to "anti-abortion." I was always offended by anti-abortionists trying to make their position seem righteous/pro-life as against everyone else who should be regarded as uncaring about human life.
You can't be pro-life if you oppose every effort to ensure a child's safety after birth. Nor can you be pro-life if you want everyone to have guns, including assault rifles intended originally only for the military. I could list dozens of other examples, but everyone here knows the litany,
Michael, what about the Double Faced: Anti-Life/Pro-Life hypocrites talking out of both sides of their mouths? How about straight talking this twofaced alliance against the health of us all?
Such hypocrisy and fools buy this nonsense. We have had lots of murders in Portland, mostly guns, and all the time, people wonder what we can do about gun violence. They try everything but the obvious. We did pass measure 114 which is a start to do some things, but a judge in eastern Oregon put a stay on it....his is an elected position. Now a group has an appeal to the state Supreme Court to lift the stay. Of course, this is opposed by LE, primarily sheriffs....also elected, many of them far right Rs. Must be fun to go to a call when the people may be heavily armed with military style weapons. Ally can tell us all about this attitude in LE.
They are about as pro-life as, with apologies to Holden Caulfield, a cold toilet seat. The R party is the party of death. Nothing pro-life about it.....just pro white men, pro power, pro greed.
The designation "pro-life" implies that there's only one life in question and only one life that needs to be considered. I'm sorry to say that I've seen that perspective stated baldly and categorically: "It's the kid's turn. She's had her shot." From this statement it follows more or less inevitably that whatever a potentially pregnable person has, it isn't (to paraphrase Roger Taney) a life in any sense that anyone of the ostensibly "pro-life" persuasion is bound to respect. I cannot wrap my mind around that.
Following the logic that the survival of the fetus takes precedent over the mother, then the mother is merely an incubator. I chose not to have children. What value does my life have, then?
Phyllis Schlafly espoused women staying home, taking care of the two parent family, while the husband /father brought home the bread. Her job that helped her work to defeat the Equal Rights Amendment? Career Woman Attorney. A career.
Grand hypocrisy. Here’s the ERA, EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT:
It is astonishing the way people get their panties all in a twist. I don't care which side of the street people stand on with their bullhorns to throw their tantrums and shout their invective, 99.99% of it is nothing but noise. In the end it all comes to nothing but more anger, more deeply entrenched cognitive dissonance, more high blood pressure, and more indigestion.
As the Sage of Saratoga once said: "I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me pot-roast or give me death!"
I've only heard rumors. She never mentioned it in any of her interviews. Besides, her culinary skills, or lack thereof, have nothing to do with the subject of this thread.
I must remember to never comment on an empty stomach.
My ex-mother in law told me in 1976 when I was 19 and a new voter (I voted for Jimmy Carter) not to vote for the ERA because there would be no more restrooms for men and women. It was commonly called the Bathroom Law, and it was Schlafly who was behind the failure of the Equal Rights Amendment to get passed. Anita Bryant, the Florida Orange Juice pitchwoman, was another pest we had to put up with.
Isn’t it ironic that women organized for equality and equal rights and we celebrate those rights today, but.. enough women and men led by powerful forces didn’t vote or voted against ERA and we had to find and create other political and social strategies to get to Equality. And we’re still not there. Now we battle the courts and the “system.” And the repubs.
Remember when the nation was gripped with fear that a Catholic president--John F Kennedy--would get his instructions from the Vatican? I do. Well, guess what. The Vatican radicals have now enleagued with the fascists--on the principle of obedience to authority--and SCOTUS is tongue-dragging in pursuit of Vatican suppression of women. Kennedy, on the other hand, was remarkably independent and free-thinking. Some would say, too free. Meanwhile, abortion would be just a simple medical procedure and not even a topic of discussion if we lived in a culture where we tried always to do what is best for women and children. The whole issue is about domination of women, not about morality or religious principle.
John, I will never forget the moment JFK was elected even though I was only 10. My dad, a first generation Irish-American, 6’3” and tough as nails, wept.
Interestingly, though a faithful Catholic, he noted Kennedy’s independence of thought and agreed with his actions and policies. Most of my parents friends did too. Faithful Catholics, yes. But as Americans, they understood the separation of Church and State, something the Extreme Court members could take a lesson from. (Render unto Caesar and all that.).
That Republicans and many Catholics support policy that prevents abortion but do nothing to support children (child tax credits, education, free lunch and after school programs, etc.) is hypocritical BS as you noted. Totally about regaining control of all the uppity, smart, competent, capable women who know what’s best for themselves, their bodies and their children. Like my two beautiful 30-something daughters and me. And millions of other American women. Grrrrrrr.
My dad thought the world had come to an end when JFK won. And then later on he listened to Rush. I have often wondered what he make of the party of death now.
Nowhere in HCR's survey is there any mention of the legal or constitutional basis for the federal judiciary to take the power to regulate or ban abortion away from the people of the various states, acting independently through their representatives within each state's sovereign jurisdiction.
In particular, the questionable constitutional doctrine of substantive due process continues to be ignored.
Too bad he was "pardoned" in a way that seemed to be to stretch the meaning of "pardon" to a fiat cancellation of due process. I knew at the time it was a terrible precedent, although I did not quite see how badly it would be used in the future. My concern is and was that rank was placed above the law, exactly what "Equal Justice Under Law" (as engraved on the SCOTUS edifice) was meant to counter.
Nowhere in HCR's survey is there any mention of the legal or constitutional basis for the federal judiciary to take the power to regulate or ban abortion away from the people of the various states, acting independently through their representatives within each state's sovereign jurisdiction.
In particular, the questionable constitutional doctrine of substantive due process continues to be ignored.
And still, these many years later, men have basically never been held responsible for causing pregnancy. As a meme I have seen on FB says: 100% of unplanned/unwanted pregnancies are caused by men. Let them get vasectomies. Let men be responsible for birth control. Where is the male birth control pill? No doubt, some men are best left in a woman's past, abusers, whether physical or psychological. But too few men truly contribute to the rearing of children they engender.
Yes indeed. With our current DNA technology accomplishing so much else, why isn't it employed to hold the guy who did the deed responsible? Consensual or not. Two people are involved. But the man just goes on his way...maybe becomes a Congressman who votes for anti-women legislation.
We have the ability to attach paychecks and repeat offenders could be limited in their pursuits if you grasp my meaning.
Where is the male birth control pill?What drug company will develop a medication that men would never take? Can’t see a rapist taking it. Or a sexually abusive father. Or a group of “fun loving” fraternity bros.
Carmen- this meme is by the author of the book “Ejaculate Responsibly”. Sorry … can’t recall the author's name at the moment, but she makes a sound argument that pregnancy is caused by the irresponsibility of men. Citing, among other things, the easy obtainment and safety of condoms vs birth control options available to women.
Sharon, Gabrielle Blair’s “Ejaculate Responsibly” should be required reading by all sixteen year old males. The parental responsibility of the father should be legally binding for eighteen years as is generally expected of the mother.
It seems that every citizen has the RIGHT to know his/her genetic inheritance in order to better manage future health since many health conditions are hereditary. Why is the Certificate of Live Birth not required to identify the parentage of the newborn citizen in order to qualify for the civil rights offered by the country of birth?
Maybe there should be legal obligations to parenthood? Maybe the default should be every pubescent should be on birth control (I’m certain medical research could figure that out) until certain qualifications for parenthood are met. Extreme?… Yes, but population control would go a looooong way to sustainable life and the survival of our species. What a gift to be born WANTED by one’s mother and father!
Unpleasant physical side effects were considered intolerable for men, unlike for women. The only reason birth control pills stop once a month so women can experience the inconvenience and pain of menstruation, was to make it easier to get male legislators to agree to legalize them.
* Changes in your periods (early, late, or stopping altogether while on the pill)
* Spotting (bleeding between periods or brown discharge)
*
Complications are rare, but they can be serious. These include heart attack, stroke, blood clots, and liver tumors. In very rare cases, they can lead to death.
Be wary of what you ask for. The anti-abortion movement does give men responsibility, but for babies not their own. Responsibility and the parameters of it have to be assumed, preferably motivated by wonder at the event, and affection for the bearer.
I presume you mean politicians who take responsibility for the collective pregnancies of all women. Yet you say "babies." No, they do not take responsibility for babies. They have no interest in children and their needs.
They have no interest in women except to insure they keep popping out future workers.
The modern (or anti-modern) GOP was rooted in white racist backlash to the civil rights movement and court decisions of the 1960s and Catholic (and eventually evangelical) backlash to women's liberation. Are we surprised that, despite the Marjorie Taylor Greenes, Lauren Bobos, and Amy Coney Rabbits, they're basically a party of white men (and the women who love them -- oh yeah, and Clarence Thomas).
I'd add that the GOP's popularity is also rooted in ignorance of our democratic heritage. We were given a flag, a Bible, a gun, and rulership of the world post-WWll. Omniscient and violent, and ignorant and young. Lets hope we survive ourselves. Hope and strive, that is.
Nowhere in HCR's survey is there any mention of the legal or constitutional basis for the federal judiciary to take the power to regulate or ban abortion away from the people of the various states, acting independently through their representatives within each state's sovereign jurisdiction.
In particular, the questionable constitutional doctrine of substantive due process continues to be ignored.
So you want to leave the rights of citizens -- a whole class of citizens -- up to the states? I think the 14th Amendment did away with that, or at least tried to.
Over the decades, the judicial interpretation of the 14th Amendment has flipped, and then flopped, and then re-flipped, now with the "importation" of restrictions on Congress onto the individual states, together with new-found rights through an expansive interpretation of "substantive due process." Now the Supreme Court has taken a direction toward re-flopping on the 14th Amendment.
I've shared more of my thought on this in a response to someone else:
MA Indivisible made The Janes available to us this weekend. It's an HBO documentary about a group of Chicago women who came together pre-Roe in service to women who were unexpectedly and desperately in need of an abortion. I watched it last night, and I recommend it highly. It is, unfortunately, very timely.
Laura Kaplan's _The Story of Jane_, first published in the mid-1990s, was reissued last year with a post-Dobbs introduction. It's a wonderful book -- the story not only of Jane but of those tumultuous women's liberation years.
When asked, everyone I’ve talked to is against the state or federal government forcing people to put their health at risk to save lives by stem cell, blood or organ donation. Forced pregnancy is treated differently than these donations although the donations are a lot safer than pregnancy or childbirth. Why are the two scenarios treated so differently?
Despite all the bleating, no R pol in this current party of death cares one whit for women or children. And if there were a 50/50 chance that males would get PG, there would be an abortion clinic on every corner. Also any woman who is wealthy enough can get an abortion and the men who get them PG, even if they give lip service to being against abortion will drive them to the clinic and pay for it. This is all about getting votes. Legal and safe abortion is so important to the lives of women. This burden will fall on those least able to cope with it and some women will die.
At this year’s Right to Life March, one of the speakers praised a woman who died in childbirth rather than have an abortion, leaving her husband to raise his children alone.
Yes. This is so sad, but it has also gotten a lot of people off their rears to vote and I think was a big factor in the midterms. The guy running against Salinas in our new House district six here in Oregon is antiabortion. It came out that he had taken a girlfriend to an abortion clinic and paid for it. Salinas won, thankfully.
What about children growing up with no mother? That’s punishing children already in the world. It’s a selfish act to choose death rather than remaining with living children.
Indeed. Also when a culture is patrilineal, men need to control women's bodies to make sure the child is of their seed. In matrilineal cultures, this is not a problem; everyone knows who mom is. I am reading a book on a priestess in Sumer, the daughter of the conquering Sargon, who probably wrote several temple hymns to various gods in Sumerian cities. She served the moon god in Ur. One of themes in the book is how at first goddesses were more important in Sumer and how this gradually changed to male gods being the most important. Sargon was not Sumerian, but a Semite from Akkadia. Beyond this, I am learning a lot about this area during the first millennia.
Then I also recommend Marilyn French's "Beyond Power: on Women, Men, and Morals". Extraordinarily enlightening on the struggle of patriarchalism to survive and to dominate.
I started learning about this in the 1970s -- it was in the air, and books were starting to come out, often from feminist presses. Merlin Stone's WHEN GOD WAS A WOMAN was a big one, and her two-volume ANCIENT MIRRORS OF WOMANHOOD. I still have Barbara Walker's hefty WOMAN'S ENCYCLOPEDIA OF MYTHS AND SECRETS. Elaine Pagels' scholarly GNOSTIC GOSPELS first came out around then too. To say we ate it up is an understatement.
Make that "heterosex." As I've been pointing out for about 45 years and counting, lesbians rarely get pregnant by accident and it's not because we gave up sex.
Mary, such a great question. Abortion foes paint abortion as murder. It’s easy for people to be against murder. It requires no effort or commitment and it is always about someone else’s problem. It’s always a “you” problem, never a “me” problem. (And when it becomes a “me” problem, proclaimed anti-abortionists opt for abortion all the time.) Forced vaccination or mask wearing, blood/organ/stem cell donation would be universal. Anti-abortionist impose the burden of pregnancy on others, but they balk at lifesaving measures that would impose requirements on themselves.
The anti-abortion crowd isn't big on supporting "the unborn" after they're born either. Very true about anti-abortion women seeking abortions when they need one. I got my first heads-up about this in the early '80s from women who either volunteered or worked at women's health clinics. The "right-to-lifers" seem to have it worked out that they alone have *good* reasons for getting an abortion, but everyone else is promiscuous, immoral, or (at best) selfish.
Dr. Willie Parker talks about this in his book, "Life's Work: A Moral Argument for Choice". There were women who would be out protesting one day and sneaking in the next because they or their daughter needed an abortion for "good" reasons.
Then they would be back out on the line protesting. Ugh.
Back in the early 90s I knew several evangelicals who bought into Limbaugh's shtick, hook line and sinker. The hypocrisy was astounding, but they were blind to it. After all, in their minds they were building God's kingdom here on earth. When you've convinced yourself that the God you've created is on your side, then everything is allowed.
It is more likely the case that they were participating in the building of Satan's kingdom.
Nixon's resignation occurred at the beginning of my senior year in high school, and marks, in my memory, my first sense of real political awareness. It cracked my young faith in the US government. Everything prior to that was wrapped up in the good-versus-evil mindset of a child, from the assassination of JFK and RFK (committed by criminals) to the insanity of the Vietnam War (it must somehow be necessary). But Nixon ordered henchmen to burgle a private office under the cover of night, not for any grand issue of national security or protecting the people of the nation, but simply to dig up "dirt" on a political opponent for his own personal gain.
Nixon went down in my personal "history of the US" as a common criminal, and an aberration. He stained the Republican Party for me by association.
Almost five decades later, I have a rather different view of him. His little Watergate escapade was a minor technical foul. His deepest crime was opening the gate to the forces of darkness and inviting them in. In the style of all such villains, he apparently did this for that pettiest of motivations, the desire for power.
I have walked the same trail in life. Obvious to me at age 16, that Vietnam was a mistake. Then we had the assassinations, Watergate. Nixon opening the door for Reagan, then into Afghanistan and Iraq.  For what?
I’d like to think I’ve been patient, naïvely, thinking that my fellow citizens would eventually figure this out. They haven’t. To paraphrase Churchill, we tried every bad idea, and now we need a good idea as powerful as the big lie.  Only caveat?  It has to be the truth. 
Nixon also had people spied on, and he did a lot of other dodgy stuff. He was a terrible criminal president and shouldn't be excused by minimizing the Watergate burglary.
One small nit. Roe was written by Justice Harry Blackmun, not Lewis Blackmun. I once had the privilege of sitting at Justice Blackmun’s table at a dinner party. He was a very special person. Gentle, caring and thoughtful.
Nowhere in HCR's survey is there any mention of the legal or constitutional basis for the federal judiciary to take the power to regulate or ban abortion away from the people of the various states, acting independently through their representatives within each state's sovereign jurisdiction.
In particular, the questionable constitutional doctrine of substantive due process continues to be ignored. Perhaps you have some thoughts.
Where are the protections in Dobbs for the life of the mother when a pregnancy can be fatal…and abortion is not allowed….’protecting the life of the mother’ in such circumstance s appears to have no value…..
All "protections" are a lie. Imagine actually having to go before a judge to get their involvement in such a private emergency. And having to present private medical info, and then the judge rules against you.
The most important thing is CHOICE. We should not have to justify getting an abortion. My body, my choice.
Surfing stations as I drove, I heard a right wing radio “shock jock” casually state that “all Democrats are baby killers.” My first reaction was to the insanity of the statement itself, but then the import of how he said it hit me: his off-hand delivery over the public airwaves told me that to his audience what he was saying was just a mutually understood “fact” established well before then. This was before trump was installed, but after the genocide in Rwanda. They used radio to devastating effect there as well.
Messed up Harry Blackmun's name AGAIN!!! For some reason, I always want him to be "Lewis." Sorry about that.
Ther have been follow up studies showing that the same percentage of women who birthed and gave up for adoption had the same kinds of sorrow, feelings of guilt, and self negation as those who aborted electively. I have seen no study since abortions are done with medications at home but would guess that for many women the sorrow would still be real. I support termination of pregnancy with counseling before and if needed after such procedures, but the state of "health care" now is not capable of doing what women may need, with the exception of clinics like Planned Parenthood. To forbid the procedure is just another piece of evidence that our society is shifting to the desire for power and control and leaving empathy and kindness behind. Do you feel that happening?
Women have a right to bodily autonomy. Full stop. "Counseling before and if needed after such procedures" is an unnecessary burden placed on more than half the population.
Should there be a law requiring men to have counseling before and after masturbation?
I recommend talking it over with your wife first. There might be a far more enjoyable evening ahead if you do!
:-)
Yes, destroying potential life should be a crime.LOL
LOL
Before and after having a vasectomy?
Or a vasectomy ?
Culturally, for many centuries, masturbation was forbidden. This was due to the association of masturbation with witchcraft and wizardry -- acting to compel others through implanting and cultivating thoughts and urges, often as the target slept.
Elle, I agree counseling is a burden if required by the state, but perhaps it should be freely provided on demand as part of a system of universal healthcare to anyone who feels the need for it.
No matter how well-meaning the idea of counseling might be for women seeking abortions, I see it as the assumption that an abortion is wrong and the woman will regret it. The reasons for seeking an abortion range from simple to highly complex. These reasons are none of your business and the obsession with the need for counseling would be best channeled somewhere else. What Elle said: women...bodily autonomy...full stop!
Yep. This. I am about to say something that the men in this conversation might not want to hear, but here it is. Until MEN are LEGALLY MADE RESPONSIBLE for impregnating women--since it does require the insemination of male sperm to cause a pregnancy--they should SHUT UP. But because the lawmakers and judges who have decided to police women's bodies on everything from the contents of their uteruses to the clothing they wear (I'm talking about YOU, Missouri legislature!!!!) are overwhelmingly male and the women who belly up to the boyz bar are doing so because it advantages them personally and professionally--a situation known in my academic circles as the patriarchal bargain--men will never have to answer for the fact that THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR PREGNANCY. The late great Gerda Lerner, riffing off of Frederick Engels' 1890 essay On the Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State, in her book The Creation of Patriarchy identifies the sexual enslavement of women in order to guarantee paternity (something Engels pointed out--women were the first humans to be "owned" by men) as the origins of imperialism, the enslavement of others, and ultimately fascism and all its inherent racist and misogynist systems. Gerda's work is a bit problematic in some of the ways she presented the pre-modern past (she was not well versed in the kinds of sources we in the feminist historian community use) and her argument was not particularly nuanced, but it is a compelling one.
So men: shut up. If you're an ally, BE AN ALLY and shut up. Preventing women's bodily autonomy is the last bastion of the autocracy of males. It is time for them to shut up, stop arguing with women, stop mansplaining about women's bodies, and get out of our way.
This is one of the issues that makes me furious. Really, really furious. And see above re: the patriarchal bargain if you want to argue with me about women who are joining the boyz to try to prevent women's bodily autonomy.
My son, a pastor, says men are responsible for every abortion. Until men understand they are complicit for unwanted pregnancies, the law recognizes and demands men be held accountable, women will be owned by men who decide what they can and cannot do with their lives. This was part a of a conversation we had.
Jesus doesn’t address abortion in the New Testament, at all. So that’s a big fat lie.
I do not participate in organized religion (weird, since my son was called to serve). But, I feel organized religion is responsible for wars, hate, persecution and false prophets in it for personal gain, and of course political power. So I completely disregard the religious aspect of this acute nonsense of control of one human being by another.
Women, we’re not demanding that something be done about men’s testicles! We need to start seriously discussing requirements for vasectomies for all men. After all, strict requirements for abortion are required for all women. There is a way to greatly reduce unwanted pregnancies. Stop the sperm, there’s way more sperm than eggs in the first place. Hey! New slogan! STOP THE SPERM!
I’m with you, Linda. As well-meaning as our male colleagues may be, it is hard to believe they truly understand the fundamental horror of being forced to carry a pregnancy against your will. Especially by the (MAGA-driven) State. Positively dystopian.
Back in the 70s, I had 2 abortions. I did not require counseling and in fact, I have read many times that women who choose abortion rarely need counseling before or afterwards. Indeed, men need to shut up. They have no right to interfere with a decision that isn't theirs to make. It's interesting that there is so much misogyny behind the "compassion" many men exhibit in their need to somehow make women who have abortions into victims who need professional counseling. Sorry, David Herrick, but please check yourself, ok?
Wow. What a fascinating discussion. The men on this page are attempting to show support for women. Of course they can't feel or know what a pregnancy or an abortion feels like. But telling 50% of the population to "shut up" and generalizing about their possible behavior or possible beliefs is bewildering to me.
Lumping "men" together is insulting and unproductive. The men here are probably going to be the men who will campaign for and vote for a women's right to reproductive freedom. And you don't think they should have a voice? Really?
Turning away the goodwill and the help of fellow humans suggest that you possibly have another agenda. Not sure what that is.
We are here to help. And you are not going to shut us up.
Sorry, I'm a male and I won't "shut up." Yet, wouldn't it be nice to remove male judges and legislators from the decision making process regarding freedom to choose? Just imagine if there were laws that controlled when and if men could have vasectomies? "Just try it, lady!" they would scream, as they unholster their pistols.
You are getting riled up about a completely legitimate issue, which is NOT happening in the comments here.
Show me where making counseling available to anyone who wants it infringes on any woman's right to reproductive freedom.
More women in the world need a safe place. There are 6 Matriarchal Societies Around the World. The Umoja tribe in Kenya created a village in 1990 as home to women who have experienced sexual or gender-based violence. Will American women who want to be safe have to start their own country?
https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/tradition/g28565280/matriarchal-societies-list/
One more voice in this chorus agreeing 100% with Linda. Let's be fair and recognize the many compassionate, empathic men that support women and their right to bodily autonomy. Unfortunately they seem to be in the minority. The rest, butt out of this discussion. You have no idea what you're talking about.
Awesome!!
Well.. (Linda Mitchell - KCMO) I sure won't interrupt, but I will speak up. And I share in your words. Only area you didn't cover is the religion factor in all this. Since 1954 when we were decreed to be "under god".., women subrogated the right to privacy. Comment on that one.
Well said!
I agree wholeheartedly, Linda!
28 arguments showing men are responsible for pregnancy . EJACULATE RESPONSIBLY BY Blair
I am in awe at the complexity and passion of response to the idea of offering counseling to any woman who might want it as part of her decision whether or not to end a pregnancy. The idea that this offering assumes that an abortion is wrong has a flip and harmful side: that women shouldn't have any mixed feelings about ending a pregnancy, and that if they do, they are somehow not truly liberated.
I was a nun for five years from 1963-1968, and when I left, I encountered women at booths in shopping malls advocating for legal abortion. I was appalled; didn't they know abortion was murder? But after a few discussions about why they were doing this work, I learned that when abortion is illegal, rich women (and the mistresses of rich men) fly to where it is legal and poor women and girls die, murdered by bad law. So while I might not ever have chosen to have an abortion myself, I fully support reproductive choice and am appalled at how Republicans have turned this debate into yet another cynical grab for power.
At the same time, I have had several discussion with a young woman who is very dear to me, who, years after a very difficult decision to have an abortion, still experiences regret and even guilt at that decision. Her emotional state is no less worthy of respect and support, which may need to include counseling, than that of a woman who is able to make this decision more easily and without regret. Full stop. (I debated adding "full stop" as too snarky, but somehow it felt right.)
Terry, I know very few women who have made the decision easily. Even when the right, or even only possible decision, it is usually not easy. And I've worked in women's healthcare for decades. There is no right or wrong reason, only the one they make. All of us live with our decisions. Autonomy requires that we be able to make them free of judgment. And yes, counseling in support of autonomous decision is a valuable goal. Maybe if we ever achieve universal health care, we can achieve equitable access to mental, as well as physical, care.
We all make decisions we wrestle with, and some we look back and wish we could rethink. Thank you for supporting your young friend.
Chaplain Terry, I appreciate your willingness to learn and to grow in wisdom. I think that some women truly "need" counseling and emotional support during this time. Of course it shouldn't be a "requirement"; that's just plain stupid. But to have it available for those who need it is necessary and humane.
I hope she gets the help she seeks and is able to internalize the fact that guilt is a useless thing. It largely arises from manmade religious ideology. Religion would serve its practitioners much better by focusing on tolerance.
I think when some women feel total relief after an abortion, there are other women who feel regret or maybe guilt. Women’s feelings about this issue are complex. It’s not an either or could be both.
I'm replying to myself because from the many comments below, it looks like I was not as clear as I might have been in response to the notion that offering counseling to women choosing to have an abortion assumes that there is something wrong with that choice.
What I was trying to say is that there is a harmful flip side to that notion, and that is that it implies that if a women does have mixed feelings or conflict about ending a pregnancy she's not as autonomous or "liberated" as a woman who does not.
I included the story of my dear young friend because she is quite autonomous and intelligent and she still deals with regret over her decision, especially regret that it was necessary at the time.
I have seen in my own life as well as in the lives of many family and friends the wounding that can happen to people when their feelings are judged in any way. Actions can and in some cases should be judged. But feelings need breathing room and acceptance if they are to flow through us rather than get stuck.
I have just returned to DC from 18 days in NYC with my sister who spent her last days in the hospital and died on Jan 20. So HCR's newsletter of 1/21 is the first I've read in that time. My sister was fiercely independent so it seemed fitting that I would have the opportunity to comment on the topic of women's autonomy and reproductive freedom while mourning her death.
"that women shouldn't have any mixed feelings about ending a pregnancy, and that if they do, they are somehow not truly liberated."
Kindly explain what you mean by "liberated." It hints at misogyny.
I am in full support of your core concept. But abortion and healthcare services are everyone's business. You denigrate David who is not implying anything you are suggesting. While I am disgusted that so many of these decisions have been made by "old white guys", it would seem to be unproductive to alienate the "old white guys" like me who are in full support of your goals.
As you say, the decision can be highly complex. Offering professional help for free as part of a National Healthcare System is hardly invasive - it is the essence of social support. And there is absolutely no implication in such a system that "that an abortion is wrong and the woman will regret it." Couldn't a woman have an abortion for any of multiple legitimate reasons...and still feel like she wants to talk about it? Let's go back to your phrase "highly complex".
True, the decision by a woman to terminate a pregnancy or not should be entirely hers. And a compassionate civilized society would provide the full range of care for the procedure and any counseling the woman may ask for - or not.
We all vote on such stuff. I raise my voice in support of universal health care - for everyone. And that includes the full range of mental health needs. And frankly, don't we need men's votes to get there?
What about the man's need for counseling?
KathyF, your response to my comment shows that you need to learn to read more slowly and carefully before answering rudely.
I do not think abortion is wrong or that women will regret it, though I suppose some might, just as some might reasonably see it as a liberation. Every situation is unique.
Also, I do not suffer from any obsession I am aware of, with the possible exception of being told abortion is none of my business and that I should turn my thoughts elsewhere. It is definitely my business that the same people trying to limit a woman's right to an abortion will also likely try to limit other rights I hold dear.
So yes, "women and bodily autonomy!" But please spare me the "full stop".
David, there was nothing rude about Kathyf’s response. Presuming a need for pre/post abortion counseling plays into the hands of those who claim disingenuously that abortion is immoral and therefore a psychological burden.
The psychological burden is a fabrication of the unnecessary debate itself. Just as there is no other-side-ism to slavery, there is no other-side-ism to bodily autonomy. Forced labor after all is slavery.
David. You are outnumbered. You have been told in very clear terms it's really not your business.
Throwing in your rights with abortion is outlandish at best.
Exactly, Kathy. Thank you.
Kathy, the key words are, "on demand," and "for anyone who feels the need for it."
The choice would be up to the woman. David is not claiming this is any of his business. I think you do him an injustice.
If counseling were available as part of a National Health program, no one would be forced or coerced. They could choose it. Or not.
Thank you Cheryl! At least someone understands me.
Somehow, this conversation makes me think about “well-meaning” efforts of conversion therapy. While sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression aren’t the same as pregnancy, per se, the message is similar.
Absolutely Diane! And the definition of ally-ship in the LGBTQ+ community is not to "heterosplain," talk over people, claim to know better, etc. They ask allies to shut up and listen respectfully. The fact is that men--gay or straight but especially straight white men--are so rarely told to shut up and listen that they get their knickers in a twist when someone does so--especially if it is someone who is not white and/or is in possession of a uterus. If you are female, not straight, and/or not white, being told to "shut up and listen" is often an everyday occurrence. But yet again: the men who are protesting too much on this thread are doing so because they seem to feel that their very existence gives them rights that we don't have. And they're lousy listeners.
I must disagree that the idea of counseling constitutes an assumption that an abortion is wrong. Choosing abortion can be an emotionally wrenching decision and experience for some, though not all, women. An assumption that seeking counseling implies that a "woman has done something wrong" perpetuates the anti-abortion claims that having an abortion is automatically wrong, and simply piles on that attitude to a woman who has made a very difficult decision. Counseling must, however, be a matter of personal choice just as the decision to have an abortion should be.
Let me try to shed more light on my comment. It is the anti-abortionists who use counseling to try and persuade women against having an abortion because they think it is wrong. I fully support a woman's right to choose and support them should they want help in deciding. However, especially with the overturning of Roe v Wade, counseling, sometimes mandatory, can be a minefield of misinformation. Those of us who are pro-choice have let the anti-abortion movement frame abortion as one so fraught with emotional difficulties, it cannot be survived without counseling. While this is true for some women, I think studies tend to show that most women are able to make the decision without major difficulties and abortion is not linked to mental health difficulties. See two such studies: https://www.ansirh.org/sites/default/files/publications/files/mental_health_issue_brief_7-24-2018.pdf and https://www.apa.org/monitor/2022/09/news-facts-abortion-mental-health
A burden? It's imposing upon a woman someone else's idea of how she should handle her feelings surrounding a pregnancy. Women are very well acquainted with the strong feelings surrounding any pregnancy.
I am discouraged and completely baffled that men continue to weigh in on this subject.
You know what, Barbara? Besides agreeing with both you and Linda and many women who have commented, I say this.
I am so tired of defending women’s rights. Who decided we have to DEFEND our rights? And always in an “acceptable” fashion that does not anger anyone or make them feel guilty.
Defending our rights obviously implies someone, somewhere… tried to change or take away those rights.
I will not defend the right to speak of something that IS inherently my right….my body.
I will promote the right of every human to make personal decisions about their bodies. Whether I agree with it or not.
Allow me an example…. I no sooner would weigh in on the emotional or social “correctness” of vasectomies than the man in the moon. Or any trauma associated with it. What do I know of that? I just want that choice available and safe for any man.
Why is it the patriarchal bargain has always been to lead and decide for both genders?
Ummmm, no.
Salud!
🗽
Agree Christine. Thanks for your post. It is beyond infuriating and exhausting that men continue to weigh in on women's issues.
I was thinking of any time there was a totally male issue and what I did with my opinion. Then this memory came. During the Vietnam War there was the draft and also conscientious objectors. Given that I wasn't subject to being drafted I withheld any opinion on the issue.
And yes. I don't talk to men about their vasectomies either.
FYI, David said counseling is a burden if imposed by the state.
I agree.
And I agree that some women might well choose counseling with someone they trust if they are struggling to make the decision. our body, our choice.
We (Men) "weigh in" because you women don't put up a united front. You tend to be your own worst enemy. You need us and we need you. But, I have to admit.., sometimes when I look in the mirror I see that I too have nipples and have to wonder if......
IT IS FREELY PROVIDED. Has been for the last 50 years. I had a counseling session before the
procedure 30 YEARS AGO after being assaulted on a date.
Ooops there’s that ‘four letter’ word again Universal healthcare! The maga cult leaders including Leo p Leo. Of the Federalist cabal prefer to have states under fund public education, why would they support Universal health care?
Consideration of the general well being (including mental health) of every patient relative to many procedure would be the ideal for exemplary health care. Even having a colonoscopy can be stressful and frightening. My main point though - I had an abortion of a 3rd pregnancy while married to protect the fragile family I already had. NO REGRETS. Many of my friends terminated pregnancies - NO REGRETS. I'd love to see any real data on post abortion regret in women. I would wager far more just move on with their lives - but maybe society will judge them as cruel while society prefers to judge women with regret as pitiful. Lose/lose for women again.
Margaret, I've had much the same experience as you. I found one small study that reports some of what you request: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.112704
Thanks so much! Excellent scientific article. So why is there all the fuss about post abortion regret? Spin and headlines, I guess.
Thank you for this resource.
Very well said, Margaret.
Elle I agree only if that counseling is forced on the female. Counseling should be offered if the female wants it.
"The female?"A female horse is a mare. A female pig is a sow. A female chicken is a hen. A female human is a woman. If we're going to dignify animals by using the terms specific to them, can we not afford the same dignity to women?
Abortion is a medical procedure. It is one tool that enables women and their doctors to provide comprehensive health care. Jessica Valenti says pregnancy is to complex to legislate. I feel infuriated that a legislative body thinks it has the right to interfere in a person's healthcare decisions.
Full stop, in deed! Without the Right to control decisions pertaining to their bodies, women are relegated to second class status! Sammie Alito and his like minded and demented members of Roberts’ sham court are apex on our society!
Alito is the leak, Ginni Thomas pushed for the leak and Thomas is a patsy. The Supreme Circus.
LOL Thanks
Thank you, I do love modern men who are sufficiently sure of their own worth to share the rights with others.
This has been quite an exchange of opinions and ideas! Very, very captivating today! We’ve all done well with articulating our thoughts and feelings. Do we all agree if legislation exists that prohibits all women freedom regarding reproductive rights, should there not also exist legislation regarding men’s reproductive accountability? We can’t have “Johnny Spermseed”
impregnating women willy nilly with no accountability any longer. Or victims of abuse who must prove they’ve been assaulted by a male? That’s been the way of things and will continue until we WOMEN demand accountability from men. They must be forced to use reliable birth control, and have their lives legally affected by their irresponsibility when they do not. It’s what’s being demanded of us women. This must become a 2 way street. Demand male accountability. It’ll be good for all of us.
Agreed, but let's get the US Government to agree that women are entitled to equal rights under the law as a first step, tell President Biden to sign the already ratified Amendment 28 into the Constitution.
This is the email I sent the President: Dear Mr. President.
In 2020 we finally ratified Amendment 28 guaranteeing women Equal Rights under the Law, when Virginia ratified the ERA Amendment 28. All this law does is agree what is scientifically proven, we are all Homo sapiens, there are no sub-species and therefore both genders are entitled to equal recognition. The overturn over Roe v Wade merely amplifies the current status of inequality
Thank you,
Fay Reid
Excellent!
Absolutely 💯. I’m sick of that being left out flapping in the wind! Get to it!
Absolutely right. Karen.
Here's another approach. Before justices or legislators can be eligible to vote on an abortion ban, even in cases in which underage girls are raped, they must do the following. Get violently, anally raped by a stranger or family member and have the attacker's semen lodged in a large capsule up their rectum. At the end of nine months, perhaps with new found perspective, they may cast their vote.
Do you believe that a woman should be permitted to terminate a pregnancy—other than by early delivery through caesarean section or medical inducement—if she is 8 1/2 months pregnant with an apparently healthy fetus? Is so, you are in a very small minority. At some point, almost everyone agrees, society has a sufficient interest in the child to limit the mother’s options, just as it does by forbidding infanticide after the child is born.
The hard question is where, during pregnancy, to draw the line.
A woman who carries a pregnancy to 8.5 months does NOT decide to terminate said pregnancy on a whim. If you'd read statistics you'd know that a decision to abort at that stage is because of fetal abnormality inconsistent with life after birth, or extreme risk to the mother's health or life. Butt out!
Of course not. My point was simply that at SOME point society has a right to regulate what may happen to the fetus. For me, as I have explained elsewhere on this string, the court got it pretty much right in Roe, with the viability standard. And the fact that I am male (and a father of two daughters, if you care) does not mean that the societal interest is not there? (Pardon the double-negative.)*
And my point is that, no, at no point does "society" ( read: religion, patriarchy, what-ever) have a right to impose their "interests" upon this decision or its process. Hard no.
When you get pregnant, you can decide.
My point was that at some point the issue becomes one that is no longer purely personal. Society does have a legitimate interest. Do you believe that that is never true?
This is an absurd question, asked simply to piss people off. I am quite sure that this situation has never existed.
An 8 1/2 month pregnancy would be a live induced birth, not an abortion. You are confusing the delivery of a healthy fetus with a late term abortion, which is performed if the fetus is found not to be viable due to extreme abnormalities. In other words, healthy fetuses are never aborted at 8 1/2 months.
My illustration was extreme, but there is a point where most people would agree that society has an interest in what happens to the fetus/nascent child. When should that be? My own view is that the court got it pretty much right in Roe: when the fetus becomes viable outside the womb. That standard is only a guideline. There will be a debate over at what point viability occurs. And should it depend on whether the child could be cared for in a neonatal ICR? Should it make a difference whether the mother is a mature woman who could care for the child, or a teen for him caring for such a tiny infant would be too much to bear? I don't have answers to such questions. But I do believe that there is a time before birth when the likelihood of an independent life is sufficient for the state to set standards, even if I can't say exactly when that is.
Ew. A "mature woman" can't abort because she "can care for the child"? Here we go again. And not a word in your comment about the father!
You should try to recognize your own misogyny before you talk about "standards," namely that the state's "standards" are based in 2,000 years of misogyny and control of women.
Absa-damn-lutely!!
Sorry to have caused such a ruckus. I should have said "offering non-mandatory counseling if requested." I really did not mean to imply mandatory counseling. No, I don't think all men need counseling before vasectomy, but there are some people, of all genders, who imagine they will have no regrets before abortion or sterilization who do not do so well after the procedures. Absolutism is not always the best policy, I certainly would hope people see that.
Where does this right come from? Where in general do rights come from? In the collective mind of the Founders, reflecting the Natural Law tradition of their schooling and reflected in the Declaration of Independence, rights are derived from duties.
This is also reflected in the wording of the Second Amendment: Men had the DUTY to bring their guns to militia training, so of course they had a right to own a gun. (And regarding the right of Black men -- Union veterans in the deep South -- to bear arms as part of a county militia, look up the Colfax Massacre.)
Thank you for the Founding Father background info! Lest we not forget, these men did NOT include women in the list of those who can vote! They get credit for negotiating to form The United States of America, but not for their lack of understanding of their phrase ‘All men (?) are created equal’ ! Indeed they did not consider men of color to be equal and the omission of women in their statement clearly was not unintended!
Frank, when you get pregnant, you can go through counseling, or any other hoop of fire you choose to jump through. Until then, mind your own business. Stop with your opinions of what you think women should have to submit to before being allowed to have a surgical procedure. How dare you.
I didn’t read his post as saying this
Amen!
DLM - Frank posted this to clarify his earlier post because so many, like yourself, made assumptions due to his less-clearly articulated original post:
"Frank Mitchell Jan 22
Sorry to have caused such a ruckus. I should have said "offering non-mandatory counseling if requested." I really did not mean to imply mandatory counseling. No, I don't think all men need counseling before vasectomy, but there are some people, of all genders, who imagine they will have no regrets before abortion or sterilization who do not do so well after the procedures. Absolutism is not always the best policy, I certainly would hope people see that."
High quality therapeutic counseling should be readily available to all who need or want it; it should not be a condition for access to reproductive health care.
Yes, the stigmatization of mental health care should be abolished, and those who wish to control women would benefit from its availability.
I would be interested in studies related to the emotional reactions of the men who participated in creating the pregnancy. Of course, I’m talking about accountability, which is largely left out of all of this mishigas.
Frank, I agree with much of what you say, with the exception of "counseling." That word suggests that women are not intelligent enough to make such a decision on their own, and I find that offensive and paternalistic.
Well said. Thank you Nancy.
❤️At nearly 80, I have somewhat less tolerance for even well-intended paternalism
The complete abortion issue is a woman's business. Men have zero say in this.
Frank, not to be rude, but using the word "studies" is a red herring. Name those studies, please, and note if they come from biased sources. Also, there are so many reasons for mood problems before, during and after pregnancy. What are the fluctuations of hormones, for example? What are the environmental influences at home?
Although your comment is concerned about women (thank you), nevertheless it is still advocating "control" in some way; an assumption of a woman's "need.".
But yes, there is a tidal wave of desperate attempts to return to a time of straight, white male supremacy (and of the women who support them.) Just look at Putin and Trump, for a prime example.
When was the last time it was recommended on the national stage that men get counseling? This counseling thing plays right into the age old "hysterical woman" patriarchy.
"Hyster" is the Latin word for uterus. Really, are men required to get counseling before a vasectomy? Throughout the ages women have been portrayed as confused, overly emotional, immature, stupid, flighty, shrill, bitter, etc.
True! Just what if all men were required to get counseling? Perhaps there would be much less violence in our society. No mass shootings with weapons of mass destruction. No domestic violence. No rapes, possibly no religion!! No superiority complex...ah, well....I have a dream...
Gosh Hope think we should start a movement? The "Mandatory for Men!" movement.
Through the NIH national library of medicine one can access several articles, a very comprehensive review being:
SAGE Open Med. 2018; 6: 2050312118807624.
Published online 2018 Oct 29. doi: 10.1177/2050312118807624: Title is:
The abortion and mental health controversy: A comprehensive literature review of common ground agreements, disagreements, actionable recommendations, and research opportunities
That is actually a far more recent review than I recall . I used to keep a file of all the articles I read, but when I retired from practice of medicine I sent them to the recycle bin. My apologies and to those who think this is not anything a man should be talking about, I beg your indulgence. I was born male and have not decided in 79 years to change that.
Okay, Frank, thank you. I want to be clear that you can make recommendations, of course. My point is that men should be much more sensitive to "prescribing" for women. We really are capable of self-care and decisions about our reproductive health. Stating a well-thought-out opinion is one thing. Making a determination for women is another.
With that statement I agree wholeheartedly. I always looked at medical care as a partnership between information seeker and information "repository". Part of it was learning early on that "giving orders" didn't work at all for nearly anyone. (Communication theory - a book authored by a guy named Watzlawick - helped find alternatives.) Would that that were the norm, which I think has been one of the reasons that women in the nurse practitioner roles are gaining popularity and revolutionizing primary care.
Counseling? Hogwash! And as to that “follow up study”? More hogwash!
Interesting post, Frank. In the 70s, pre-Roe, two young women in my dorm had illegal abortions. One brushed it off but the other was suicidally depressed. I had read that post-part depression can occur following either a birth or an abortion (due to the enormous changes in hormones), and I believed a lack of post-abortion care during the days of illegal abortion nearly caused this young woman’s death.
Or it could have been her mental state going into the abortion in the first place. Or it could have been her mental state from her upbringing, boyfriend issues, etc etc etc.
Requiring abortion counseling is abusive and invasive.
I never said counseling should be required.
I never said you did.
Counseling would probably be helpful in the case of any pregnancy: giving birth and becoming responsible for a human life is a forever life-altering decision.
And as far as adoption as an option: I don’t see how that is even comparable - carrying a pregnancy to term and then separating from the infant. Definitely need counseling there.
Thank you, Jeanne. Many birth mothers, and adoptees, suffer lifelong trauma of relinquishment.Although according to the Repubs, it’s all unicorns and rainbows…
Are abortion doctors, who routinely dismember fetuses as part if the procedure, more likely to be alcoholics?
We will more than forgive you any error you make because you correct them. And you must know how much we, (I know I can speak for most of your subscribers) love your "letters". I can't wait to read them and appreciate them more than I can say. So, thank you, thank you for your terrific "letters". The are brilliant and educational.
Heather No problem with Blackmun’s name.. And if you mess up the names of a number of current Supreme Court justices, your readers would only nod or even applaud.
Perhaps you were thinking of Lewis Powell who concurred with Blackmun’s opinion, which was a good thing. Powell’s famous memorandum was not.
Nowhere in HCR's survey is there any mention of the legal or constitutional basis for the federal judiciary to take the power to regulate or ban abortion away from the people of the various states, acting independently through their representatives within each state's sovereign jurisdiction.
In particular, the questionable constitutional doctrine of substantive due process continues to be ignored.
As in Lewis Black?
I will always remain gobsmacked at the sheer hypocrisy of a political party--a party that supposedly stands for smaller government and less government intervention in our lives--when it basically inserts itself in a woman's uterus (apologies for being graphic) and decides IT knows what is best for how it is to be used. That's "intervening" in someone's life about as much as is humanly possible. And that in a majority of the cases it is MEN who do this is "de klap op de vuurpijl" (a Dutch expression I can't really translate, but is similar to "the straw that broke the camel's back"). Funny how they accuse Democrats of meddling in everyone's lives, yet when they do it--essentially ramming their Christo-fascist morality down our collective throats--suddenly it's okay. I guess they didn't learn anything from their losses in the last election, and pundits point to abortion as being an issue that motivated a lot of Democratic and Progressive voter turnout. Weren't they paying attention?? Never mind...we'll just keep harping on it until '24 and see what happens then, won't we?
“Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to 9 months. After that, they don’t wanna know about you. They don’t wanna hear from you. No nothing! No neonatal care, no daycare, no Head Start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothing. If you’re pre-born, you’re fine, if you’re preschool, you’re f@#ked.”
George Carlin, 1996
Exactly. If they were pro child USA would offer world class pre and postnatal healthcare care and universal day care. But sadly they are not pro child at all
George still speaks to us, listen
Yup. Thank you.
I posted his YouTube on the subject here. I miss George so much.
https://billalstrom.substack.com/p/george-carlin-explains
Oh, too true and too funny. Hope you post it one more time. Just send it to your repub reps and label it “Sanctity of Life.” Part one
Sure miss Carlin.
Yes he was.
George Carlin was also 100% right!
"Small government" was always Newspeak for increasing government resources and access for Republican patrons and clients, and shrinking benefits and access for everyone else. No? Republicans put a hell of a lot of money and effort into dominating "government" they claim to hate. The are pleased as punch with impunity for them and their cohort, and heavy-handed subjugation of others, foreign or domestic.
"Freedom for me, and not for thee."
And then on the news tonight I see that slimy, simpering, overly oleaginous Mike Pence talking (smarmily boasting was more like it) about attending the Pro-Life rally in DC and hearing him talk about "we have to continue fighting for the sanctity of life..." I found myself screaming at the TV, "IF YOU REALLY BELIEVE IN THE SANCTITY OF LIFE, YOU SORRY SACK OF SHIT, THEN WHAT ABOUT GETTING RID OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT?!?!? THOSE LIVES DON'T MATTER?!?!?" Life is life, you know. So you grant it for a zygote of a few cells and not for a fully formed, sentient human being?? But then again, I *THINK* we can figure out why "pro-lifers" conveniently forget about people on death row...now let me see...what could it be?? Hmmm...
GOP has a deep sincere abiding faith in the sanctity of all life...that is why they sooo vigorously support and want to expand...paid maternity leave, SNAP to fight child hunger, free school lunches, robust pre/post natal healthcare via Obamacare, mental health programs for those at risk of taking their own life, gun control to lessen the 45,000 who die of gun violence annually, $15 minimum wage so parents can feed their kids, subsidize daycare and increased taxes on the wealthy while reducing taxes on the middle class so they can feed their children.
The "sanctity of life" was apparently not worth a needle jab or putting on a mask to reduce the chance of spreading a deadly disease. The COVID virus is a real piece of work, but it lacks legs. We have to lend it ours, and being clueless or selfish is a real booster for it's travels.
Speaking of "gun control", imagine what would happen if the "pro life" movement would put some weight behind gun control.
And veganism.
Seeing the diferences that all these things can make in the life of a family, particularly a mother and her child (our FUTURE) is amazing. Some of these kids have said that the free lunch is their only meal of the day. How many of those not supporting all of the above go to bed hungry? None I imagine.If we could just magically eliminate all the guns (sorry hunters), provide food for those that need it, and a clean, safe place to sleep for everyone, clean water to drink and bathe I think our country could finally move forward.
I agree except about hunters. ALL of the huntes I know or have known are responsible good folks who do an important job of culling our deer herds in Northern Michigan, and the venison is never wasted. In fact, several of our local hunters donate venison to the less fortunate.
First, thanks for not generalizing about hunters. Here's my take. Anyone who hunts or fishes for anything that is not an endangered species AND eats it should have our respect. It takes a lot of work. And in the case of deer...some think they are cute (they are) but they also are a factor in spreading Lyme Disease (I've had it more than once - you don't want it). And venison is tasty.
But I think everyone here would agree that it doesn't take an AR-15 or an AK-47 to kill a deer. Those were designed to shoot bullets that do more than penetrate a body. They are designed to destroy flesh. Ask anyone working in an ER.
Yes. All my hunter friends are opposed to AR & AK and such assault weapons. They shoot ONE bullet, and in the most humane way. I have 2 friends with long term Lyme. Absolutely awful suffering.
You did see I corrected my comment ?It was magical thinking, wanting to stop SO much violence Hunters in many places are definitely helpful and part of the solution, not the problem My son- in - law is also an amazing fisherman And practices catch and release, etc And yes, hunters and fisherman I know share extras And NOTHING goes to waste
Hunters are just human. I have lived in VT, AK, and HI for 30 years. Lived on a cattle ranch for 13 years. I know plenty of hunters who get drunk and go shooting, who leave their weapons unsecured, threaten people with their guns, etc. ALL guns should be registered, classes taken, and gun owners held accountable for any harm caused by their weapons. And no civilian needs a military style weapon. In my humble opinion.
Some hunters are conservationist if only to preserve game, and some I've known are highly safety conscious. There is also the other kind. A former game warden I knew told me about multiple encounters with hunters he had asked if they had seen any game, and they replied, "no, but we shot at some noise".
You are totally right about the hunters I was being silly All the hunters I know ( including my son-in -law) are totally responsible
And support gun control
P.S. All the hunters I know support strong gun control.
😀
To add to the pile rubbish the right uses to increase Fascism and the hypocrisy of the “right to life,” movement we can add focus on the impact of Theocracy on the very least of us; the poor and pregnant black females.
Can there be any more wretched a circumstance than being young, black and pregnant in any of the red states that forgoes Medicaid and prohibits abortion?
Add the anti-abortion Justice of places like Texas with Citizen Vigilante monitoring the facilities our desperate teen would seek help.
Is there any person with less freedom than any young black?
Hahaha, you are hilarious
Thank You! Always looking for humor. Sometimes desperately.
If Pence was so interested in the sanctity of life, why did he look in the camera and say Covid was under control, while hundreds of thousands of Americans were dead or dying.
America First, in COVID deaths.
And they claim to want to prosecute Fauci.
Self-serving selective acknowledgement is a hallmark of fanatical thinking. I suspect we are all hypocrites to some degree; I know I am, but political extremists have a way of cutting a pasting fragments of reality in the way of some kidnappers who are said to cut random letters out of magazines, to fashion a ransom note.
I asked that question of a priest (now a bishop) and he said there are degrees of guilt. A fetus has none while an adult may, to which I say you better be damn sure the person is guilty of the crime. And you can’t be.
That's just it. Let's face it, killing someone is pretty damn final, and time after time there have been plenty of examples of people sitting on death row or serving time and things come to light to show they were, after all, innocent. We can say with a fair degree of certainty that there have, in all likelihood, been people who were put to death after having been wrongly accused and sentenced who were completely innocent. THAT, to me, is an even greater crime. Yes, there are degrees of guilt, but does it lie with us to be the arbiters of the punishment meted out for these degrees? Who decides what punishment is to go with which guilt? I prefer to leave that to God, the Universe, Karma, whatever. The Bible isn't always clear and gives conflicting signals, and besides, IS it really true and right to use something like a Bible, or any text for that matter, as the be all end all, when it comes to deciding life or death? Are we to presume SO much about ourselves that we feel WE, with ALL certainty, can deliver justice in the name of whatever our version of God might be? For myself, as a Christian, I feel in my heart of hearts that Jesus would not be for the taking of another life, for any reason. As for those that think a fetus is a life, I think Jesus would be most likely be responding from the Jewish belief that a person isn't a living, breathing, whole person until, after birth, they take their first breath, independent of the mother. In Old Testament belief, man became a living soul only after God breathed life into a lump of clay. As one of the 10 commandments says, we are not to kill. Well, okay, but kill what? I think that probably starts with us not killing each other and maybe proceeds from there. Who knows? I certainly do not presume to have answers, but I DO believe that the State, any state, should not be deciding life and death in such things. To me that is morally wrong. Just my Sunday morning ramblings...
Bruce Sellers, I think we think very much alike.
It seems natural to have a thirst for justice. But some people seem to be satisfied to have a life extinguished in retribution for the crime of homicide, regardless of whether or not there is conclusive proof of guilt of the person accused of the crime. I think we should ignore the Biblical imperative of "a life for a life".
I rely on Rene Descartes for my sense of epistemology, for when I can say that I know **that** I know. He begins by observing that his senses can play tricks on his mind, such as seeing a mirage. His logic leads from being tricked by one thing, to possibly being tricked by almost everything, to the point where he can safely say he knows that he *knows* only one thing: "Cogito, ergo sum". I think, therefore I AM. I know that I exist, even if I can't say I know anything else. If I can only be certain in my mind that I exist, then I certainly cannot condemn someone to die. It should be enough to require the accused and convicted person to live in a prison cell, leaving open the possibility of exoneration in the future.
Over the course of my long life I have become convinced that "life", as we humans understand the term, is present in all of the lifeforms in our world, or at least those that don't send roots into the ground -- and I'm just not sure about the plants and the fungi. My view is that the effect of our human activity is responsible for an epochal mass extinction, currently underway, the sixth in the history of Earth, according to various scientists. There was a day and an hour in the spring of 1970 when I began to empathize with the plight of all living creatures. It stayed with me, and I changed my ways. Now I recognize signs of intelligence in various creatures. I try to live by the Golden Rule.
I'm reading "Speed and Scale" by John Doerr, which is an even-handed and sober discussion of how we humans might be able to adjust the way we live on Earth, toward ensuring that our home planet will still be habitable in a long-term future.
I think that too many people suffer from hubris. We have learned so much about our world and the greater universe in the past five hundred years or so that there is a tendency to think we already know everything we need to know. If we could manage to increase our national average humility quotient, our severe disagreements would surely become less strident. We might begin again to regard each other with more empathy and kindness. And we may not yet have an inkling about what the universe has in store for us, what might be heading our way. Instead of fighting with each other, like kids in the back seat of a car on a long road trip, we might want to turn our full attention toward the things we don't yet know about the universe in which we dwell.
I will always recall my horror at President Clinton returning to Arkansas to ensure the execution of a creature so bereft of intelligence he asked that the remains of his last supper be set aside so he finish after the ceremony.
I still think that single case of ridiculous revenge would have ended the death penalty.
Thanks. He brings out the best/worst in me.
'Most Abortion Bans Include Exceptions. In Practice, Few Are Granted' (excerpts from the NYTimes)
‘Last summer, a Mississippi woman sought an abortion after, she said, a friend had raped her. Her state prohibits most abortions but allows them for rape victims. Yet she could not find a doctor to provide one.’
‘In September, an Indiana woman learned that a fetal defect meant her baby would die shortly after birth, if not sooner. Her state’s abortion ban included an exception for such cases, but she was referred to Illinois or Michigan.’
‘The abortion bans enacted in about half the states since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June do not prohibit abortion entirely. Most make exceptions in certain circumstances, commonly to protect the health or life of the patient, or in the case of rape or incest. And as conservative state lawmakers prepare to take up new restrictions on abortion in upcoming legislative sessions, exceptions will be at the heart of the debate.’
‘But in the months since the court’s decision, very few exceptions to these new abortion bans have been granted, a New York Times review of available state data and interviews with dozens of physicians, advocates and lawmakers revealed.’
'Instead, those with means are traveling to states where abortion is still broadly legal or are obtaining abortion pills at home because the requirements to qualify for exceptions are too steep. Doctors and hospitals are turning away patients, saying that ambiguous laws and the threat of criminal penalties make them unwilling to test the rules.'
'A majority of Americans think abortion should be legal in most circumstances, and even those who otherwise oppose abortion generally support exceptions for rape and for health complications. But abortion-rights advocates say legal exceptions do nothing but make abortion bans appear more reasonable than they really are.'
'Even if Mississippi still had an abortion provider, the woman probably would not have qualified for the state’s rape exception. About a quarter of states that prohibit abortions include allowances for rape and incest victims, and nearly all of those, including Mississippi, require proof of an assault from a police report or a doctor’s note.'
'Anti-abortion advocates say that a police report is necessary to prove that an assault happened and to prevent providers from using the exception as a backdoor to access.'
“You need detailed laws for those that don’t want to obey the law,” Mr. Bopp said.
Those who work with sexual assault victims say a requirement to report to law enforcement is one of the steepest barriers for those who seek abortions. About two-thirds of victims do not report to law enforcement; many know their abuser and worry about the consequences.
Almost every state ban makes an exception when the pregnancy endangers the patient’s life, but three states — Idaho, North Dakota and Tennessee — have a stricter provision. In those states, the burden is on doctors to prove the patient’s life was in peril. In the other states, the burden would be on prosecutors to prove that it was not.'
'Bob Ramsey, a former Republican representative in Tennessee who opposes abortion, ultimately did not vote for the state’s ban because it did not contain explicit exceptions. In his view, some of his colleagues ignored warnings that the law would rattle doctors.'
“The confusion is actually an intent,” said Mr. Ramsey, who left office after losing a primary last year. “The more confusing it is, the more likely there will be no abortion in the state of Tennessee. That’s a win for people who are opposed to abortion.”
‘But abortion-rights advocates have warned for decades that exceptions would not work in practice. They point to the rare instances of patients being granted exceptions to the Hyde Amendment, which blocks federal Medicaid funding for abortion services.
And those on both sides of the issue say there may be no middle ground.’
‘Mary Ziegler, a law professor at the University of California, Davis, who specializes in the history of abortion, said, “What would seem workable to a lot of physicians or reproductive-rights supporters would look like a loophole to the pro-life movement.” (NYTimes)
Women screwed again
And it does in TN. The chief RTL lobbyist in TN says: “We believe if the average Tennessean understood the legal difference between an affirmative defense and an exception and how minimal that is, they would support this law.” A doctor may attempt an affirmative defense—that the procedure was medically necessary—AFTER s/he is arrested, charged, and obtains defense counsel. And hopes the jury will agree. What sane doctor would risk a medical license and jail time in a plainly hostile state? Even if the hospitals’ s lawyer would let them proceed.
And get this: Univ. of Texas Medical School is sending its OB/GYN residents out of state to train. I'm wondering if those students will actually choose that field and if they do, will they return to Texas?? https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/health/article/Texas-abortion-laws-Houston-OBGYN-programs-17681461.php?utm_source=marketing&utm_medium=copy-url-link&utm_campaign=article-share&hash=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuaG91c3RvbmNocm9uaWNsZS5jb20vbmV3cy9ob3VzdG9uLXRleGFzL2hlYWx0aC9hcnRpY2xlL1RleGFzLWFib3J0aW9uLWxhd3MtSG91c3Rvbi1PQkdZTi1wcm9ncmFtcy0xNzY4MTQ2MS5waHA=&time=MTY3NDQyNjgyNTgxNQ==&rid=NDJjNzBiZDktMWU0Yi00YmI2LWIzNTAtNTA5Y2VjNTNkYTc1&sharecount=Mg==
Totally agree with you, Bruce.
In July 2022, the UN women’s rights committee said that the United States is one of the only seven countries in the world that are not parties to the international convention that protects women’s human rights, including their right to sexual and reproductive health.
The Committee urged the United States of America to adhere to the Convention, which it signed in 1980 but has never ratified. In the light of the U.S. Supreme Court decision to strike down Roe v. Wade, the Committee expressed solidarity with women and girls in the United States. In addition, it called on all States parties to end criminalising abortion and allow legal abortion at least in cases of rape, incest, threats to life or health of the pregnant woman and girl, and severe foetal impairment."
https://www.ohchr.org/en/statements/2022/07/access-safe-and-legal-abortion-urgent-call-united-states-adhere-womens-rights
They never learn, I remember such blather from 2012, and they doubled-down on Tea party insanity. These cretins are totally detached from the “GOP.’ It’s dead and buried in an undisclosed location. JFK was a model for how a Catholic politician should behave, so is Joe Biden. The power-hungry cretins of today outnumber any ethical religious group. Be very afraid. The inquisition has a majority in the SC…
"their Christo-fascist morality"
An oxymoron. As your comment demonstrates. And it's all in service of relieving the unconscionably wealthy of the burdens of democracy - taxation, regulations, and social programs. Neil Gorsuch (who had he been ethical would have refused the nomination under the McConnell scheme) gives away the game. Before Dobbs, Gorsuch was notorious for his 'frozen trucker decision.' Where Gorsuch argued that a trucker, whose company's truck broke down in a snowstorm, should have frozen to death rather than leave the truck to seek shelter.
I know! I should have put quotes around "morality", since there is nothing remotely moral about their idea of morals.
The hypocrisy has always sickened me.
Kudos Bruce, on a great post.
Marketing vs reality…
Bruce, “woman’s uterus” is where we all began! No need to apologize.
Nowhere in HCR's survey is there any mention of the legal or constitutional basis for the federal judiciary to take the power to regulate or ban abortion away from the people of the various states, acting independently through their representatives within each state's sovereign jurisdiction.
In particular, the questionable constitutional doctrine of substantive due process continues to be ignored.
Just reviewed substantive due process. Along with the 14th amendment which prohibits the government from depriving anyone of life, etc. That's what the states are doing with the draconian abortion laws saying a woman has less right to life than a few cells that may become a man -- let's just ignore that half of those cell masses will become women as second-class citizens.
I believe it is in the Ninth Amendment. The problem is we have no official way to clearly enumerate the rights that exist in the will of the People but are not named directly in the Constitution. The Founding Fathers were correct in anticipating they hadn't enumerated all the rights the People believe they should have -- like women's reproductive rights. I'd like to see a national resolution voted on by the entire voting populace enumerating this right. In the mean time there is no check on the states taking away that right, but then, why not, women aren't mentioned in the Constitution so the Supreme Court can just ignore the non-Y-chromosome half of the population and their rights. I'm going to ignore them in return! We, the People, all of us including women this time!
Am I alone in feeling that the available emojis on substack are greatly lacking ? Cathy, I do so love to read your input ! One of many bright spots for me to consider in this community. I don't think merely 'ignoring' the sotus will be enough, b/c the overly sensitive media, the far right (left and middle right too) will assure them the whole public platform as it's now mis-constructed. No, I think far more is demanded today and for the foreseeable future. For one thing, I believe mass demonstrations like what has been done towards the wrong wing sotus needs massive support; very public morale, finance, and legal support organized and executed. I saw where the Maryland neighborhoods where those cretins reside are trying to use the force of laws to prevent them demonstrating, as such they will need the aforementioned support. Organized dissent works; mass public shaming works. Observe how effective it's been used against the will of the majorities these past few decades... We now live in a country wherein the 'tail wags the whole dog.' Even a 'stub tail' wags the whole dog.
Perhaps there is a lack of understanding about the shared view of the Founders about where rights came from. I discussed that a bit in this post:
https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/january-21-2023/comment/12136620
Where do "women's reproductive rights" come from? Do women (and men) have the right to have sex with whomever they want whenever they want, as long as it's consensual? The majority of our society today might think that way without thinking it through, but this was not the view of the Founders who wrote the Constitution. That brings up the question of constitutional "originalism" or not, which I'm not trying to get into.
You imagine a "national resolution voted on by the entire voting populance enumerating this right." The problem is, we're not a unitary nation where (for example) the President is at the top of the chain of command leading down to local police stations. We are a union of states (the "united states") that have retained elements of their sovereignty, including the collective right to separately decide on laws regarding abortion. Would you reform or abolish that?
EDIT: One last thought: Several months ago, when I was posting around here for about a month, people were inclined to get the wrong impression about where I'm at politically. In my view, the union of the fifty states is fragile and at risk, and a break-up of the union could well lead to something approaching the genocidal consequences that Russia suffered in the early 1990s (most of the old people got wiped out -- do you know any retired baby boomers who live on their social security checks?) when the Soviet Union broke up. (What happens to old people when high blood pressure medication suddenly becomes unavailable except for the wealthy?)
Yes, I understand there is no process for a national resolution. we can dream of sometime being a true democracy without representatives but a direct say. On the states, I'd like you to note that before the Civil War (or the War between the States if you'd like) one said "the United States are", after the Civil War one says "the United States is". Yes, our democracy is fragile. Yes, I see this extreme anti-socialism in the GOP a threat to my Social Security check which I look upon as return on the investment I made for decades paying into the Social Security system. I do enjoy how the "originalists had to quote a British guy from four centuries ago who believe in prosecuting witchcraft to come up with the "rationale" for Dobbs.
There are those who "understand" that witchcraft includes spiritual thuggery by means of collective masturbation. Do victims of witches exist as a category?
There are victims of witch hunts like TFG. I always wanted to correct that these aren't witch hunts. They are warlock hunts unless TFG is hiding his real pronouns! LOL!
They just piss me off SO much!! Their arrogance and blatant hypocrisy really get on my last nerve. It's like they are totally devoid of any memory. Oh well, we have to keep reminding them!
It's not memory that they're devoid of. They want the world to be what they want, and nothing else matters. To this end they can and will rationalize anything.
How true is that. The CRUX of the issue
Perfectly capsulized.
Left brain.
I’m with you Bruce. The hypocrisy is so blatant, yet their constituents seem blind to it. You say they are “devoid of any memory. “. I see it was devoid of any morality.
Evil in Morality Clothing
Oh I know...their infamy when it comes to rights is on a scale that is off the charts, but this one irks me especially. Five friends of mine endured abortions, abortions that tortured them then and still do now some 40+ years later. I was privy to what they went through as a friend and confidant--I used to wonder how I always got myself in such situations!--and to think that there are those who would think that these women made their decisions lightly. FAR from it. It also happened within my own family in the early '40s, a shocking revelation my mom confessed to me before she died (it wasn't her, though), but I was absolutely floored. I was also profoundly sad AND angry. With this experience I could not NOT be angry on behalf of women.
Thank you Janet; human rights in general, including all the body parts of all human beings not only the bilateral system of women all they way to the ovaries & the production therein. In CA we have an express right of Privacy in our State Constitution. In Michigan citizens have just lawfully gained the right to majority rule meaning in large part no gerrymandering period. You can see profound change now. Michigan will no longer be a target of contested issues or any bodily function. One person one vote.
"Abortion is now constitutionally protected in Michigan
Last week, the ballot measure to enshrine the right to obtain an abortion into the state constitution passed with a nearly 57% majority.Nov 21, 2022"
https://stateofreform.com › 2022/11
We are so proud of our Governor Whitmer, Attorney General, Dana Nessel, and Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson!!!
Very good point.
Agree 100%
One good sign I've noticed - and it just may be on MSNBC - is that the designation of the position "pro-life" has been changed to "anti-abortion." I was always offended by anti-abortionists trying to make their position seem righteous/pro-life as against everyone else who should be regarded as uncaring about human life.
You can't be pro-life if you oppose every effort to ensure a child's safety after birth. Nor can you be pro-life if you want everyone to have guns, including assault rifles intended originally only for the military. I could list dozens of other examples, but everyone here knows the litany,
Michael, what about the Double Faced: Anti-Life/Pro-Life hypocrites talking out of both sides of their mouths? How about straight talking this twofaced alliance against the health of us all?
Such hypocrisy and fools buy this nonsense. We have had lots of murders in Portland, mostly guns, and all the time, people wonder what we can do about gun violence. They try everything but the obvious. We did pass measure 114 which is a start to do some things, but a judge in eastern Oregon put a stay on it....his is an elected position. Now a group has an appeal to the state Supreme Court to lift the stay. Of course, this is opposed by LE, primarily sheriffs....also elected, many of them far right Rs. Must be fun to go to a call when the people may be heavily armed with military style weapons. Ally can tell us all about this attitude in LE.
They are about as pro-life as, with apologies to Holden Caulfield, a cold toilet seat. The R party is the party of death. Nothing pro-life about it.....just pro white men, pro power, pro greed.
and they appear indifferent to mass anthropogenic extinctions. The "coal mine" is filling with "deadly gas".
I include the death of the planet as part of their party of death agenda.
Grind it all up for the sake of" profit"
The elite think their money is going to save them from the consequences of their actions and decisions.
So THAT’s what George Santos is for!  He’s the canary in the coal mine! How long will it take for him to topple over? 
The designation "pro-life" implies that there's only one life in question and only one life that needs to be considered. I'm sorry to say that I've seen that perspective stated baldly and categorically: "It's the kid's turn. She's had her shot." From this statement it follows more or less inevitably that whatever a potentially pregnable person has, it isn't (to paraphrase Roger Taney) a life in any sense that anyone of the ostensibly "pro-life" persuasion is bound to respect. I cannot wrap my mind around that.
Following the logic that the survival of the fetus takes precedent over the mother, then the mother is merely an incubator. I chose not to have children. What value does my life have, then?
Plenty
Yes Mina, when people select their halos, duck!
Every time I am reminded of Phyllis Schlafly, I have a visceral reaction of disgust.
Phyllis Schlafly espoused women staying home, taking care of the two parent family, while the husband /father brought home the bread. Her job that helped her work to defeat the Equal Rights Amendment? Career Woman Attorney. A career.
Grand hypocrisy. Here’s the ERA, EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT:
https://www.ushistory.org/us/57c.asp
She was a terrible person in so many ways.
Perhaps, but she made a fantastic pot roast.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Thanks! I think a little levity is helpful.
It is astonishing the way people get their panties all in a twist. I don't care which side of the street people stand on with their bullhorns to throw their tantrums and shout their invective, 99.99% of it is nothing but noise. In the end it all comes to nothing but more anger, more deeply entrenched cognitive dissonance, more high blood pressure, and more indigestion.
As the Sage of Saratoga once said: "I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me pot-roast or give me death!"
The high blood pressure comes from the pot roast, Kenneth.
So why are you commenting?
So did lots of other women, which has nothing to do with women's rights, you supercilious so-and-so!
Did she?
I've only heard rumors. She never mentioned it in any of her interviews. Besides, her culinary skills, or lack thereof, have nothing to do with the subject of this thread.
I must remember to never comment on an empty stomach.
...and you did not need to wear a condom because, like other GOPers, she would have gotten the abortion if pregnant.
Prove it, witnesses needed. She was a self-righteous bitch
Now I am really going to vomit.
She personified evil. Her memory elicits disgust, even after so long.
My ex-mother in law told me in 1976 when I was 19 and a new voter (I voted for Jimmy Carter) not to vote for the ERA because there would be no more restrooms for men and women. It was commonly called the Bathroom Law, and it was Schlafly who was behind the failure of the Equal Rights Amendment to get passed. Anita Bryant, the Florida Orange Juice pitchwoman, was another pest we had to put up with.
Isn’t it ironic that women organized for equality and equal rights and we celebrate those rights today, but.. enough women and men led by powerful forces didn’t vote or voted against ERA and we had to find and create other political and social strategies to get to Equality. And we’re still not there. Now we battle the courts and the “system.” And the repubs.
There are always quislings, and fools who vote against their own interests. The GOP is loaded with both.
I take my loathing out on every unfortunate "fly" I come across. They're all named "Phyllis," naturally.
Remember when the nation was gripped with fear that a Catholic president--John F Kennedy--would get his instructions from the Vatican? I do. Well, guess what. The Vatican radicals have now enleagued with the fascists--on the principle of obedience to authority--and SCOTUS is tongue-dragging in pursuit of Vatican suppression of women. Kennedy, on the other hand, was remarkably independent and free-thinking. Some would say, too free. Meanwhile, abortion would be just a simple medical procedure and not even a topic of discussion if we lived in a culture where we tried always to do what is best for women and children. The whole issue is about domination of women, not about morality or religious principle.
Thank you for posting this clearly and succinctly. Great post.
John, I will never forget the moment JFK was elected even though I was only 10. My dad, a first generation Irish-American, 6’3” and tough as nails, wept.
Interestingly, though a faithful Catholic, he noted Kennedy’s independence of thought and agreed with his actions and policies. Most of my parents friends did too. Faithful Catholics, yes. But as Americans, they understood the separation of Church and State, something the Extreme Court members could take a lesson from. (Render unto Caesar and all that.).
That Republicans and many Catholics support policy that prevents abortion but do nothing to support children (child tax credits, education, free lunch and after school programs, etc.) is hypocritical BS as you noted. Totally about regaining control of all the uppity, smart, competent, capable women who know what’s best for themselves, their bodies and their children. Like my two beautiful 30-something daughters and me. And millions of other American women. Grrrrrrr.
My dad thought the world had come to an end when JFK won. And then later on he listened to Rush. I have often wondered what he make of the party of death now.
Leonard Leo
That rat bastard....
Yes.
Nowhere in HCR's survey is there any mention of the legal or constitutional basis for the federal judiciary to take the power to regulate or ban abortion away from the people of the various states, acting independently through their representatives within each state's sovereign jurisdiction.
In particular, the questionable constitutional doctrine of substantive due process continues to be ignored.
Sigh. My daughter has less rights than I did growing up. My heart hurts to think how we are moving backwards rather than forward.
In my case it is my granddaughters that are having their rights stripped away; the same rights I had fifty years ago.
High time for a course correction.
Think of it as a pendulum swing. And it hasn’t stopped swinging.
Thank you for the history. I had no idea that Nixon had a hand in yet another infamy. Too bad that he was allowed to resign without punishment.
Too bad he was "pardoned" in a way that seemed to be to stretch the meaning of "pardon" to a fiat cancellation of due process. I knew at the time it was a terrible precedent, although I did not quite see how badly it would be used in the future. My concern is and was that rank was placed above the law, exactly what "Equal Justice Under Law" (as engraved on the SCOTUS edifice) was meant to counter.
Nowhere in HCR's survey is there any mention of the legal or constitutional basis for the federal judiciary to take the power to regulate or ban abortion away from the people of the various states, acting independently through their representatives within each state's sovereign jurisdiction.
In particular, the questionable constitutional doctrine of substantive due process continues to be ignored.
And still, these many years later, men have basically never been held responsible for causing pregnancy. As a meme I have seen on FB says: 100% of unplanned/unwanted pregnancies are caused by men. Let them get vasectomies. Let men be responsible for birth control. Where is the male birth control pill? No doubt, some men are best left in a woman's past, abusers, whether physical or psychological. But too few men truly contribute to the rearing of children they engender.
Yes indeed. With our current DNA technology accomplishing so much else, why isn't it employed to hold the guy who did the deed responsible? Consensual or not. Two people are involved. But the man just goes on his way...maybe becomes a Congressman who votes for anti-women legislation.
We have the ability to attach paychecks and repeat offenders could be limited in their pursuits if you grasp my meaning.
Where is the male birth control pill?What drug company will develop a medication that men would never take? Can’t see a rapist taking it. Or a sexually abusive father. Or a group of “fun loving” fraternity bros.
I've read off and on for literally decades that "scientists" are "working on it." Heh.
A society that so actively protects male privilege, and abuses women, will never have a male birth control pill.
Sexually abusive Fathers and rapists should be on the “endangered species list”.... in other words, death penalty.
Again while people are getting shot up and we ask “why” we know darned well why... GUNS!
Why do we have sexually abused children ( women can be guilty too) or raped people?? HUMANS!
Humans who are rarely held accountable. Oops, gosh, duh, just don’t know how that happens??!?!
Carmen- this meme is by the author of the book “Ejaculate Responsibly”. Sorry … can’t recall the author's name at the moment, but she makes a sound argument that pregnancy is caused by the irresponsibility of men. Citing, among other things, the easy obtainment and safety of condoms vs birth control options available to women.
Sharon, Gabrielle Blair’s “Ejaculate Responsibly” should be required reading by all sixteen year old males. The parental responsibility of the father should be legally binding for eighteen years as is generally expected of the mother.
It seems that every citizen has the RIGHT to know his/her genetic inheritance in order to better manage future health since many health conditions are hereditary. Why is the Certificate of Live Birth not required to identify the parentage of the newborn citizen in order to qualify for the civil rights offered by the country of birth?
Maybe there should be legal obligations to parenthood? Maybe the default should be every pubescent should be on birth control (I’m certain medical research could figure that out) until certain qualifications for parenthood are met. Extreme?… Yes, but population control would go a looooong way to sustainable life and the survival of our species. What a gift to be born WANTED by one’s mother and father!
Thanks for this reference!
Development of a male birth control pill stopped, according to rumors at the time, because there were uncomfortable side effects.
"...uncomfortable side effects." Ya mean like responsibility?
Beth - ya made me snort in my coffee! LOL! Although, I also know you weren't kidding.
Unpleasant physical side effects were considered intolerable for men, unlike for women. The only reason birth control pills stop once a month so women can experience the inconvenience and pain of menstruation, was to make it easier to get male legislators to agree to legalize them.
From Planned Parenthood site:
After starting the pill, some people may have:
* Headaches
* Nausea
* Sore breasts
* Changes in your periods (early, late, or stopping altogether while on the pill)
* Spotting (bleeding between periods or brown discharge)
*
Complications are rare, but they can be serious. These include heart attack, stroke, blood clots, and liver tumors. In very rare cases, they can lead to death.
Be wary of what you ask for. The anti-abortion movement does give men responsibility, but for babies not their own. Responsibility and the parameters of it have to be assumed, preferably motivated by wonder at the event, and affection for the bearer.
Richard- I don’t understand what you mean by this.
I presume you mean politicians who take responsibility for the collective pregnancies of all women. Yet you say "babies." No, they do not take responsibility for babies. They have no interest in children and their needs.
They have no interest in women except to insure they keep popping out future workers.
Babies not their own???
The modern (or anti-modern) GOP was rooted in white racist backlash to the civil rights movement and court decisions of the 1960s and Catholic (and eventually evangelical) backlash to women's liberation. Are we surprised that, despite the Marjorie Taylor Greenes, Lauren Bobos, and Amy Coney Rabbits, they're basically a party of white men (and the women who love them -- oh yeah, and Clarence Thomas).
I'd add that the GOP's popularity is also rooted in ignorance of our democratic heritage. We were given a flag, a Bible, a gun, and rulership of the world post-WWll. Omniscient and violent, and ignorant and young. Lets hope we survive ourselves. Hope and strive, that is.
Nowhere in HCR's survey is there any mention of the legal or constitutional basis for the federal judiciary to take the power to regulate or ban abortion away from the people of the various states, acting independently through their representatives within each state's sovereign jurisdiction.
In particular, the questionable constitutional doctrine of substantive due process continues to be ignored.
So you want to leave the rights of citizens -- a whole class of citizens -- up to the states? I think the 14th Amendment did away with that, or at least tried to.
Over the decades, the judicial interpretation of the 14th Amendment has flipped, and then flopped, and then re-flipped, now with the "importation" of restrictions on Congress onto the individual states, together with new-found rights through an expansive interpretation of "substantive due process." Now the Supreme Court has taken a direction toward re-flopping on the 14th Amendment.
I've shared more of my thought on this in a response to someone else:
https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/january-21-2023/comment/12157331
MA Indivisible made The Janes available to us this weekend. It's an HBO documentary about a group of Chicago women who came together pre-Roe in service to women who were unexpectedly and desperately in need of an abortion. I watched it last night, and I recommend it highly. It is, unfortunately, very timely.
Laura Kaplan's _The Story of Jane_, first published in the mid-1990s, was reissued last year with a post-Dobbs introduction. It's a wonderful book -- the story not only of Jane but of those tumultuous women's liberation years.
When asked, everyone I’ve talked to is against the state or federal government forcing people to put their health at risk to save lives by stem cell, blood or organ donation. Forced pregnancy is treated differently than these donations although the donations are a lot safer than pregnancy or childbirth. Why are the two scenarios treated so differently?
Despite all the bleating, no R pol in this current party of death cares one whit for women or children. And if there were a 50/50 chance that males would get PG, there would be an abortion clinic on every corner. Also any woman who is wealthy enough can get an abortion and the men who get them PG, even if they give lip service to being against abortion will drive them to the clinic and pay for it. This is all about getting votes. Legal and safe abortion is so important to the lives of women. This burden will fall on those least able to cope with it and some women will die.
This is all about getting votes.
As was Nixon's "Southern Strategy".
Yep, and it has already backfired on them vis a vis the recent midterms.
At this year’s Right to Life March, one of the speakers praised a woman who died in childbirth rather than have an abortion, leaving her husband to raise his children alone.
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/253411/jonathan-roumie-march-for-life-2023-pro-life-advocacy
I can't mark this with a heart. This is just how jaded this bunch is. Sickening.
We need a tears emoji....
Yes. This is so sad, but it has also gotten a lot of people off their rears to vote and I think was a big factor in the midterms. The guy running against Salinas in our new House district six here in Oregon is antiabortion. It came out that he had taken a girlfriend to an abortion clinic and paid for it. Salinas won, thankfully.
😢
So sad, for all of us.
Insanity with a halo
The crowd and the movement seem to long for human sacrifice in some sense.
What about children growing up with no mother? That’s punishing children already in the world. It’s a selfish act to choose death rather than remaining with living children.
Twisted indeed.
Ghastly.
Misogyny
Indeed. Also when a culture is patrilineal, men need to control women's bodies to make sure the child is of their seed. In matrilineal cultures, this is not a problem; everyone knows who mom is. I am reading a book on a priestess in Sumer, the daughter of the conquering Sargon, who probably wrote several temple hymns to various gods in Sumerian cities. She served the moon god in Ur. One of themes in the book is how at first goddesses were more important in Sumer and how this gradually changed to male gods being the most important. Sargon was not Sumerian, but a Semite from Akkadia. Beyond this, I am learning a lot about this area during the first millennia.
Then I also recommend Marilyn French's "Beyond Power: on Women, Men, and Morals". Extraordinarily enlightening on the struggle of patriarchalism to survive and to dominate.
Thanks for the heads up. I will put this on my list.
Also "Misogyny" by Jack Holland. He traces it from before the time of Aristotle.
I've corrected the title - and the spelling. :)
I started learning about this in the 1970s -- it was in the air, and books were starting to come out, often from feminist presses. Merlin Stone's WHEN GOD WAS A WOMAN was a big one, and her two-volume ANCIENT MIRRORS OF WOMANHOOD. I still have Barbara Walker's hefty WOMAN'S ENCYCLOPEDIA OF MYTHS AND SECRETS. Elaine Pagels' scholarly GNOSTIC GOSPELS first came out around then too. To say we ate it up is an understatement.
The best book to understand how the patriarchy took over is "The Chalice and the Blade" by Rianne Eisler
It is their punishment for the sin of having had sex.
Make that "heterosex." As I've been pointing out for about 45 years and counting, lesbians rarely get pregnant by accident and it's not because we gave up sex.
Bit the apple did they.
Mary, such a great question. Abortion foes paint abortion as murder. It’s easy for people to be against murder. It requires no effort or commitment and it is always about someone else’s problem. It’s always a “you” problem, never a “me” problem. (And when it becomes a “me” problem, proclaimed anti-abortionists opt for abortion all the time.) Forced vaccination or mask wearing, blood/organ/stem cell donation would be universal. Anti-abortionist impose the burden of pregnancy on others, but they balk at lifesaving measures that would impose requirements on themselves.
The anti-abortion crowd isn't big on supporting "the unborn" after they're born either. Very true about anti-abortion women seeking abortions when they need one. I got my first heads-up about this in the early '80s from women who either volunteered or worked at women's health clinics. The "right-to-lifers" seem to have it worked out that they alone have *good* reasons for getting an abortion, but everyone else is promiscuous, immoral, or (at best) selfish.
Dr. Willie Parker talks about this in his book, "Life's Work: A Moral Argument for Choice". There were women who would be out protesting one day and sneaking in the next because they or their daughter needed an abortion for "good" reasons.
Then they would be back out on the line protesting. Ugh.
I got to hear Dr. Parker speak (live!) a few years ago. Very powerful.
Exactly, since the mother’s body provides all of these and more.
Limbaugh’s influence cannot be underestimated. His broadcast was blaring in many offices and businesses, much like Fox News is today.
And states are busily adding new antiabortion laws. The AG of my state, Alabama, is working to criminalize the use of the abortion pills.
Fox is the most watched TV station on US military bases. Now that’s scary.
And probably why 3 active duty Marines were just convicted for the Jan 6 insurrection.
Has anyone studied media at police stations?
Rupert rules the fools, and the rest of us.
Just drive across the south as we did. Every hotel had FOX on in the common rooms.
President Hannity must be so proud.
Tfgmanbabyliar45 gave Limbaugh a Medal of Freedom. Ultimate slap in the face for so many. Gym Jordan got one too.
Could not watch such a slap in the face to those who deserved one.
Back in the early 90s I knew several evangelicals who bought into Limbaugh's shtick, hook line and sinker. The hypocrisy was astounding, but they were blind to it. After all, in their minds they were building God's kingdom here on earth. When you've convinced yourself that the God you've created is on your side, then everything is allowed.
It is more likely the case that they were participating in the building of Satan's kingdom.
Hubris.
Nixon's resignation occurred at the beginning of my senior year in high school, and marks, in my memory, my first sense of real political awareness. It cracked my young faith in the US government. Everything prior to that was wrapped up in the good-versus-evil mindset of a child, from the assassination of JFK and RFK (committed by criminals) to the insanity of the Vietnam War (it must somehow be necessary). But Nixon ordered henchmen to burgle a private office under the cover of night, not for any grand issue of national security or protecting the people of the nation, but simply to dig up "dirt" on a political opponent for his own personal gain.
Nixon went down in my personal "history of the US" as a common criminal, and an aberration. He stained the Republican Party for me by association.
Almost five decades later, I have a rather different view of him. His little Watergate escapade was a minor technical foul. His deepest crime was opening the gate to the forces of darkness and inviting them in. In the style of all such villains, he apparently did this for that pettiest of motivations, the desire for power.
I have walked the same trail in life. Obvious to me at age 16, that Vietnam was a mistake. Then we had the assassinations, Watergate. Nixon opening the door for Reagan, then into Afghanistan and Iraq.  For what?
I’d like to think I’ve been patient, naïvely, thinking that my fellow citizens would eventually figure this out. They haven’t. To paraphrase Churchill, we tried every bad idea, and now we need a good idea as powerful as the big lie.  Only caveat?  It has to be the truth. 
My experience was identical to yours. I realized for the first time the government lies to us.
Nixon also had people spied on, and he did a lot of other dodgy stuff. He was a terrible criminal president and shouldn't be excused by minimizing the Watergate burglary.
One small nit. Roe was written by Justice Harry Blackmun, not Lewis Blackmun. I once had the privilege of sitting at Justice Blackmun’s table at a dinner party. He was a very special person. Gentle, caring and thoughtful.
Heather noticed, and corrected it about three minutes before you did...
Yes. I saw that right after I posted my comment.
Poor Lewis Blackmun. Dissed again.
Wow!
Nowhere in HCR's survey is there any mention of the legal or constitutional basis for the federal judiciary to take the power to regulate or ban abortion away from the people of the various states, acting independently through their representatives within each state's sovereign jurisdiction.
In particular, the questionable constitutional doctrine of substantive due process continues to be ignored. Perhaps you have some thoughts.
Where are the protections in Dobbs for the life of the mother when a pregnancy can be fatal…and abortion is not allowed….’protecting the life of the mother’ in such circumstance s appears to have no value…..
All "protections" are a lie. Imagine actually having to go before a judge to get their involvement in such a private emergency. And having to present private medical info, and then the judge rules against you.
The most important thing is CHOICE. We should not have to justify getting an abortion. My body, my choice.
Your point is well taken…..my point was, the women’s health/safety were not a consideration!
Surfing stations as I drove, I heard a right wing radio “shock jock” casually state that “all Democrats are baby killers.” My first reaction was to the insanity of the statement itself, but then the import of how he said it hit me: his off-hand delivery over the public airwaves told me that to his audience what he was saying was just a mutually understood “fact” established well before then. This was before trump was installed, but after the genocide in Rwanda. They used radio to devastating effect there as well.