The War On Abortion And Women's Rights

[lumpentheologie]

52 minutes ago, Anne Of Gray Gables said:

About half the women in my life - friends, sister, aunts - have had abortions. Most don't talk about it to people they are not close to.  I don't know that any of them regretted their choice. 

I know at least six women off the top of my head who have had abortions. It wasn't even a question for any of them. I'm sure I know many others who haven't shared that with me. I think we all do. 

[dramallama]

Everyone knows someone (or multiple someones) who have had abortions, whether they realize it or not.  It's an extraordinarily common secret.

[thoughtful]

I am so frightened for all of the young women in this country, the girls who will grow up to be women, and the doctors.

I have a beloved family member who is a gynecologist, and one of the kindest, most decent people I have ever known.

Abortion care is just part of the job, along with helping patients with the difficulties of menstrual issues, fibroid tumors, cancer, infertility when they want a child, menopause, and both the dangers and joys of pregnancy and birth.

I have been frightened for this person for years now. They are outspoken, writing pro-choice articles, posting online and speaking at their statehouse about the issue. Seeing their name on anti-abortion websites (which are hard not to think of as hit lists), and seeing the stress that right-wing bullshit adds to an already difficult, exhausting, and emotionally challenging career, breaks my heart.

[SassyPants]

1 hour ago, lumpentheologie said:

I know at least six women off the top of my head who have had abortions. It wasn't even a question for any of them. I'm sure I know many others who haven't shared that with me. I think we all do. 

Me too. I am in my 60s and have known women of all age groups who had the medical procedure. I have not ever heard 1 person who has voiced regret. All were done early.

[Howl]

The Bible, y'all...and jealous men, because men have recourse when they feel jealous.  Also, apparently this verse does NOT refer to abortion (according to some), just fucking over the wife who might die, whether or not she's had sex with some other guy. See, God's in control of her life.  But it's pretty obvious that it does refer to abortion.

Just speculating here, but likely many, many innocent women died an agonizing death because of a jealous husband.  Also, they could have just asked the woman...this is so much like dunking witches. 

 Numbers 5: 11-30   

The Test for an Unfaithful Wife (bolding in text is mine)

Spoiler

11 Then the LORD said to Moses,

12 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘If a man’s wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him

13 so that another man has sexual relations with her, and this is hidden from her husband and her impurity is undetected (since there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act),

14 and if feelings of jealousy come over her husband and he suspects his wife and she is impure—or if he is jealous and suspects her even though she is not impure—  

15 then he is to take his wife to the priest. He must also take an offering of a tenth of an ephah of barley flour on her behalf. He must not pour olive oil on it or put incense on it, because it is a grain offering for jealousy, a reminder-offering to draw attention to wrongdoing.

16 “ ‘The priest shall bring her and have her stand before the LORD.

17 Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water.

18 After the priest has had the woman stand before the LORD, he shall loosen her hair and place in her hands the reminder-offering, the grain offering for jealousy, while he himself holds the bitter water that brings a curse.

19 Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, “If no other man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you.

20 But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband”—

21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the LORD cause you to become a curse among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell.

22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.” “ ‘Then the woman is to say, “Amen. So be it.”

23 “ ‘The priest is to write these curses on a scroll and then wash them off into the bitter water.

24 He shall make the woman drink the bitter water that brings a curse, and this water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering will enter her.

25 The priest is to take from her hands the grain offering for jealousy, wave it before the LORD and bring it to the altar.

26 The priest is then to take a handful of the grain offering as a memorial offering and burn it on the altar; after that, he is to have the woman drink the water.

27 If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse.

28 If, however, the woman has not made herself impure, but is clean, she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children.

29 “ ‘This, then, is the law of jealousy when a woman goes astray and makes herself impure while married to her husband,

30 or when feelings of jealousy come over a man because he suspects his wife. The priest is to have her stand before the LORD and is to apply this entire law to her.

There have also been some tweets today by Jewish people, who make the point that outlawing abortion goes against their religious beliefs...

[nausicaa]

5 hours ago, SassyPants said:

That’s what I don’t understand. Where is the fiscal conservatism and protection of life in this approach? Why would red states want more people who can not put into the coffers? How and where will they hide all of those who are adversely affected? Won’t their religious constituents get tired of traversing the places the unfortunates dwell in order to get to their jobs, restaurants and fancy mega churches?

There is no fiscal conservatism in it--but the American Right lost any claim to fiscal conservatism years ago, between neo-con wars and Trump's out and out populism. 

It's also a great expansion of state powers and criminal justice expenses. If states criminalize abortion, they will need to hire more law enforcement.  If they make it legal only in cases of rape and incest, they will need to hire detectives to assess the validity of rape and incest claims (a frightening thought on several levels). 

Whenever I take the anti-abortion proposal to its rational end with someone who is pro-life, they never have answers to these logistics. 

[47of74]

Law school classmate shared pictures of her kid getting confirmed at the Catholic cathedral. It took the maximum amount of self control from me to keep from remarking and now if her kid wants to be part of a church that respects women’s bodily autonomy my Episcopal parish is having the bishop visit next week and as part of it he’ll receive people into the church.

[nausicaa]

6 hours ago, Alisamer said:

I think gay rights will be next. Birth control is just a bit of a stretch just yet, better to start with an "other" who Republican voters as a monolith are already suspicious and fearful of. Everyone knows someone who uses birth control, it's a lot more privacy-invading than other options.

I don't think interracial marriage will be next... just because of Clarence Thomas. (Also Mitch McConnell is in an interracial marriage as well.)

I also think Obergefell is at risk, but wasn't that decided under the due process and equal protection clauses? 

Roe was decided under due process and right to privacy, so if it is overturned there is a direct line to Lawrence v. Texas and Griswold v. Connecticut which were decided under the same. 

Not a lawyer so I could have this wrong. 

[47of74]

I wrote the Minnesota governor and told him it’s time to at least put secession on the fucking table.  One good thing about my grandparents being gone is at least they didn’t live long enough to see this bullshit. 

[Bluebirdbluebell]

I don't get the fears about interracial marriage. I don't see that one being rolled back with the current court. As far as I know the Catholic Church isn't anti-interracial marriage, especially between two Catholics. Interfaith marriage is more controversial. The Catholics are in charge.

Clarence Thomas is married to Ginny and they're a black man and white woman. Amy Coney Barrett is a white woman with five biological children and two adopted children from Haiti. I have very little good to say about her, but I doubt she would vote against interracial marriage, since she has an interracial family.  

Edited May 4, 2022 by Bluebirdbluebell

[libgirl2]

I'm so tired of this country.

[Cartmann99]

Oklahoma governor signs Texas-style ban on most abortions

Quote

OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) — Oklahoma’s Republican Gov. Kevin Stitt signed a Texas-style abortion ban on Tuesday that prohibits abortions after about six weeks of pregnancy, part of a nationwide push in GOP-led states hopeful that the conservative U.S. Supreme Court will uphold new restrictions.

“I want Oklahoma to be the most pro-life state in the country,” Stitt tweeted after signing the bill.

Stitt’s signing of the bill comes on the heels of a leaked draft opinion from the nation’s high court that it is considering weakening or overturning the landmark Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion nearly 50 years ago.

The bill Stitt signed takes effect immediately with his signature, and the Oklahoma Supreme Court on Tuesday denied an emergency request to temporarily halt the bill. Abortion providers say now that the new law is in effect, they will immediately stop providing services for women after six weeks of pregnancy.

“While the law is in effect, which it now is because the governor signed it, abortion services after six weeks will be largely unavailable,” said Rabia Muqaddam, a staff attorney for the New York-based Center for Reproductive Rights, which is representing Oklahoma abortion providers in the case. “It’s a short-term loss, but we’re hopeful that the Oklahoma Supreme Court will still grant us relief.”

The new law prohibits abortions once cardiac activity can be detected in an embryo, which experts say is roughly six weeks into a pregnancy, before many women know they are pregnant. A similar bill approved in Texas last year led to a dramatic reduction in the number of abortions performed in that state, with many women going to Oklahoma and other surrounding states for the procedure.

Dr. Iman Alsaden, the medical director of Planned Parenthood Great Plains, said Texas’ law that took effect in September has given their employees an idea of what a post-Roe country might look like.

“Since that day, my colleagues and I have regularly treated patients who are fleeing their communities to seek care,” Alsaden said. “They’re taking time off of work, taking time out of school and taking time away from their family responsibilities to get the care that until September 2021 they were able to get safely and readily in their communities.”

The bill authorizes abortions if performed as the result of a medical emergency, but there are no exceptions if the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest.

Like the Texas law, the Oklahoma bill would allow private citizens to sue abortion providers or anyone who helps a woman obtain an abortion for up to $10,000. After the U.S. Supreme Court allowed that mechanism to remain in place, other Republican-led states sought to copy Texas’ ban. Idaho’s governor signed the first copycat measure in March, although it has been temporarily blocked by the state’s Supreme Court.

Stitt earlier this year signed a bill to make performing an abortion a felony crime in Oklahoma, but that measure is not set to take effect until this summer, and legal experts say it’s likely to be blocked because the Roe v. Wade decision still remains the law of the land.

The number of abortions performed each year in Oklahoma, which has four abortion clinics, has declined steadily over the last two decades, from more than 6,200 in 2002 to 3,737 in 2020, the fewest in more than 20 years, according to data from the Oklahoma State Department of Health. In 2020, before the Texas law was passed, about 9% of the abortions performed in Oklahoma were women from Texas.

Before the Texas ban took effect on Sept. 1, about 40 women from Texas had abortions performed in Oklahoma each month, the data shows. That number jumped to 222 Texas women in September and 243 in October.

 

[Bluebirdbluebell]

8 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

The woman quoted above (Liz Wheeler) is a political pundit for OneAmericaNews. She spread misinformation on their network about COVID.  She has literal given bogus medical advice that probably got some people killed and yet apparently considers her a "pro-life Catholic". Jesus never said anything about abortion, but he had many words about hypocrites.

[GreyhoundFan]

Elizabeth Warren is as angry as the rest of us:

 

 

Sorry, I’m on my mobile, so I couldn’t embed the actual video. 

[Smash!]

More scary things. Unfortunately there isn‘t an unroll for those here who don’t use Twitter since she‘s restricted comments.

TLDR: Delete your period tracker on your phone NOW.

 

The other tweets of the thread above

Quote

If you think that your data showing when you last menstruated isn't of interest to those who are about to outlaw abortion, whew do I have a wakeup call for YOU.

Combine that with location tracking information and when you last menstruated and where you are seeking healthcare and you have a target on your back.

And by the way, if you have used Flo, Zuckerberg and Co already have your cycle tracked.

On the topic of the Flo App 

 

Edited May 4, 2022 by Smash!

[formergothardite]

I am 100 percent convinced that the people in Texas knew this was coming and arresting the woman for having a still birth was a trial run. They wanted to see how far they can take it right off the bat. Women going to jail for still births and miscarriages is the world they want to create.

Also, I keep thinking back to my teen years in the anti-choice movement. They were saying in the 90s that it may take a long time, but if people kept at it they would overturn abortion rights. And they did. 

The only way to win this culture war is to be as relentless as they are. They have protested daily around the country for decades. They hold up graphic pictures that make people uncomfortable. They have money raising events constantly. They hammer politicians asking if they want to kill babies. They took control of the narrative. 

Democrats have to do it that way to change the culture regarding abortion. The anti-choice crowd has been relentless for a long time, never wavering or getting distracted. And then they voted and spent decades getting people to vote. And they won because they were ruthless never gave up for one single day. 

[47of74]

9 hours ago, Bluebirdbluebell said:

I don't get the fears about interracial marriage. I don't see that one being rolled back with the current court. As far as I know the Catholic Church isn't anti-interracial marriage, especially between two Catholics. Interfaith marriage is more controversial. The Catholics are in charge.

Clarence Thomas is married to Ginny and they're a black man and white woman. Amy Coney Barrett is a white woman with five biological children and two adopted children from Haiti. I have very little good to say about her, but I doubt she would vote against interracial marriage, since she has an interracial family.  

I could see a challenge to Loving at least getting to the court and I wouldn’t trust Thomas, Beer Bong, Alito, or Handmaiden to uphold it or anything else at this point.  Hell for the right amount in bribe money they’d overturn any previous decision made. 

[47of74]

Politico is taking steps to protect itself 

Quote

Politico is on heightened alert after publishing a bombshell leaked Supreme Court draft opinion overturning Roe v Wade.

In a memo emailed to all staff on Tuesday, the influential D.C. news outlet outlined additional security precautions now in place as a result of the story, which was based on an unprecedented leak out of the high courtand suggested a conservative majority intends to strike down the landmark 1973 decision establishing a legal right to an abortion.

“Given the heightened visibility to POLITICO following our reporting on the Supreme Court last night, we would like to ensure that you are aware of several additional safety measures that we are proactively putting in place,” Politico’s Chief Talent Officer Traci Schweikert wrote atop the memo obtained and reviewed by The Daily Beast.

The memo further called upon staffers to be aware of ways in which they can protect themselves from physical or digital threats. “First, be aware of anyone accessing our elevators with you and the possibility of ‘tailgating’ to your floor,” the email continued, later encouraging employees to take active measures to secure their social-media accounts and scrubbing private information from their profiles. 

Yeah I could see some anti choice whack job threatening them for putting what the court planned to do out in the open. 

[lumpentheologie]

1 hour ago, Smash! said:

More scary things. Unfortunately there isn‘t an unroll for those here who don’t use Twitter since she‘s restricted comments.

TLDR: Delete your period tracker on your phone NOW.

 

The other tweets of the thread above

On the topic of the Flo App 

 

If you click the “Read the full conversation on twitter” link you can still see the full thread without a twitter account. 

[dramallama]

17 minutes ago, 47of74 said:

Politico is taking steps to protect itself 

Yeah I could see some anti choice whack job threatening them for putting what the court planned to do out in the open. 

I'm really curious which theory is correct - a liberal leaked it in order to warn everyone, or a conservative leaked it in order to solidify the vote and opinion because changing it after a leak would embarrass the court. 

[Destiny]

7 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Elizabeth Warren is as angry as the rest of us:

 

 

Sorry, I’m on my mobile, so I couldn’t embed the actual video. 

And a man is screaming over her while she's trying to talk. That's super on brand! I love her. She was my first choice for president with with an either Booker or Harris VP. I got half of what I wanted anyway.

I feel so helpless. I'm going to protest, obviously, but there's not a hell of a lot else I can do. All of my reps are just as pissed off as I am, so calling them and screaming DO SOMETHING is pointless, Congress isn't going to do jackshit because it's mired in fuckery (and honestly I do understand some Dems' point about the danger of getting rid of the filibuster). I know people are going to suffer and die, and I can't think of a fucking thing to actually DO*.

*I am aware of the abortion fund donation option and have sent what I can, but that hasn't done a fucking thing to assuage the anger and helplessness that I feel.

[dramallama]

Warren was a close second choice for me after Sanders in the primaries.  I would have died and gone to heaven with Sanders/Warren or Warren/Sanders, though I realize that would never realistically happen, no way the corporate Dems will allow a double progressive ticket.  I hope she runs again in the future, she has my vote.

Question - someone tried explaining to me that a national ban won't happen because Rs won't get 60+ Senate votes and they don't want to get rid of the filibuster, but what stops them from getting a House + Senate majority, getting rid of the filibuster in order to pass a national ban, and then reinstating the filibuster again before Dems regain Senate control?  I don't know much of anything about byzantine Senate procedural rules so, is that possible?  Because if that's even remotely an option I absolutely would not put it past them.

Edited May 4, 2022 by dramallama

[Destiny]

16 minutes ago, dramallama said:

Question - someone tried explaining to me that a national ban won't happen because Rs won't get 60+ Senate votes and they don't want to get rid of the filibuster, but what stops them from getting a House + Senate majority, getting rid of the filibuster in order to pass a national ban, and then reinstating the filibuster again before Dems regain Senate control?  I don't know much of anything about byzantine Senate procedural rules so, is that possible?  Because if that's even remotely an option I absolutely would not put it past them.

As I understand it? Not a fucking thing. IIRC, and someone please correct me if I'm wrong, similar things have happened in the past. I want to say one of Trump's SCOTUS nominees had it happen, but I'm blanking on which one right now.

[dramallama]

My god the Democrats are going to look like the biggest idiots ever if they've been trying to remove the filibuster while being thwarted by Manchin and Sinema, and then McConnell pulls off something like THAT?  JFC.

[SassyPants]