Tomorrow marks the fiftieth anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision. On January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court decided that for the first trimester of a pregnancy, “the attending physician, in consultation with his patient, is free to determine, without regulation by the State, that, in his medical judgment, the patient's pregnancy should be terminated. If that decision is reached, the judgment may be effectuated by an abortion free of interference by the State.”
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?
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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?
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.
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.
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…..
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.
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?
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.
Every time I am reminded of Phyllis Schlafly, I have a visceral reaction of disgust.
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.
Sigh. My daughter has less rights than I did growing up. My heart hurts to think how we are moving backwards rather than forward.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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…..
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.