Gilead Is Real: The War On Abortion And Women's Rights 2

[GreyhoundFan]

15 minutes ago, Destiny said:

It’s fucking horrifying. I can’t even with this court. They are the very definition of lawmaking from the bench right now. I honestly think that marriage protections for LGBT people will be gone in the next two years. I’d absolutely adore being wrong about this by the way.
It would cost me 5000+ to deliver with insurance because of my deductible. I don’t know what it would be without insurance but I’ve heard the figure 10K bandied about for uncomplicated deliveries. Abortion is 150 - much higher depending on gestational date as I understand it. You are absolutely right that it will disproportionally affect the poor. It will bankrupt poor women just to be able to deliver, not to mention the fact that child care is out of reach and all the rest of the costs to raise a child.

I have a friend who had a baby last year. She has decent, but not great, insurance. Because the out of pocket maximum on her plan is $16,000, she ended up paying that because she had a C-section and complicated bleeding, plus the baby ended up in NICU for a week with blood sugar issues.

Abortion pills are supposedly $100 or so (I've taken one component for a GYN issue and my insurance made me pay $25. I've heard that surgical abortions depend on a lot of factors. I read a story where a woman had to have a late term abortion in the eighth month due to a catastrophic issue with the fetus. She had to pay $10,000 plus plane tickets to Colorado and a hotel for two nights. She said she was lucky because her parents and her husband's parents were able to help financially since they had to travel in less than three days from the diagnosis of the fetal problem.

[NotQuiteMotY]

12 minutes ago, CrazyMumma said:

Hey,  I'm Australian and I'm wondering how much an abortion costs versus how much it costs to give birth in hospital in America without insurance?

I feel like this abortion law is war on the poor. 

My three cost roughly 10k each, with insurance. Vaginal births, only complications precautionary antibiotics for two of them and one type of induction medication in varying doses for all three. We "lucked out" that with the one child who needed extra time in the hospital we only had to pay the doctor fees. I'm not sure what abortions cost, and I'm sure it varies depending on place and gestational age, but I've heard tens of thousands once past the line of viability.

This isn't even a question of bring a war on the poor. Rich women can afford travel for an abortion or the healthcare, childcare, and general expenses of raising they baby if they keep it. Poor women are stuck in so many ways.

[Destiny]

11 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

I have a friend who had a baby last year. She has decent, but not great, insurance. Because the out of pocket maximum on her plan is $16,000, she ended up paying that because she had a C-section and complicated bleeding, plus the baby ended up in NICU for a week with blood sugar issues.

Jesus. That would completely fuck over my financial life for literally years. Let’s DEFINITELY force women into that. I guess I’m “lucky” to “only” have an OOP of 5K plus specialist copay of 70/visit. I can’t imagine being forced to fuck myself over like that. Everything about this is awful. 

9 minutes ago, NotQuiteMotY said:

This isn't even a question of bring a war on the poor. Rich women can afford travel for an abortion or the healthcare, childcare, and general expenses of raising they baby if they keep it. Poor women are stuck in so many ways.

This. I’m far from rich but I’m fortunate enough to be able to afford to get an abortion (in the early times, a later surgical one would fuck me over greatly), and even if my state decided to make it illegal, I could get myself to the nearest sanctuary state with minimal drama because I work from home and have some savings. I’m privileged as fuck and I know it. My heart breaks for women who aren’t as lucky. 

7 minutes ago, Destiny said:

I guess I’m “lucky” to “only” have an OOP of 5K plus specialist copay of 70/visit.

For the record, I pay 440/mo plus what my employer kicks in for JUST ME to have this “luck”. Healthcare in this country is broken badly.

Edited June 27, 2022 by Destiny

[GreyhoundFan]

[Destiny]

3 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

I know this isn’t the point, but I am so fucking tired of the only “sluts” want / need abortions rhetoric. Even assuming that was true, which it isn’t, being a “slut” doesn’t mean you don’t deserve to have autonomy of your own fucking body.

Don’t mind me, I’ve been boring everyone who will listen about my rage on this topic for months now.

Edited June 28, 2022 by Destiny

[dramallama]

A set of pills (misoprostal + mifepristone) can cost $100-$300 if you use an online-only telehealth service (illegal in some states but there are ways around it) and more like $650-$800 if you get them from a physical clinic. 

[Destiny]

Just to be clear, I 100% am not on board with slut shaming in any way. If you want to sex everyone with a pulse, get on with your bad self as long as everyone is consenting and happy to have this sex. I’m just so tired of the Right acting like abortion is a moral failing instead of fucking healthcare. 

[Xan]

45 minutes ago, Destiny said:

I’m just so tired of the Right acting like abortion is a moral failing instead of fucking healthcare. 

You're right.  Republicans and evangelicals want to paint anyone having an abortion as a child-hating slut.  Either she's a career woman or she's a sexually active teenager.  They only deal in black and white.  There are no grays.  

All I'm feeling lately is blind rage.  This is all about controlling women and I'm furious that there are actually women on the other side who are enabling it.  Sure, I understand some people feel there are moral questions.  But nobody gets to decide what a person does to their own body except the person who actually owns the body.  You don't have the right to tell me what to do with my uterus without accepting responsibility for the outcome.  You want someone to keep their child?  Help them with money, childcare, better schools, free medical care, something...  If you accept no responsibility then you have no rights.

I'd try to crawl down from my soapbox but that's where I'm living lately.

[Ozlsn]

5 hours ago, Xan said:

You want someone to keep their child?  Help them with money, childcare, better schools, free medical care, something...  If you accept no responsibility then you have no rights.

Yes, in total agreement here. This is so obviously not about the babies, or the children. It's about keeping the poor down, and women controlled because they are doing nothing that would actually help women to choose to continue pregnancies and an awful lot to put children at higher risk through unstable living situations, reduced medical care etc. 

9 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Because the out of pocket maximum on her plan is $16,000, she ended up paying that because she had a C-section and complicated bleeding, plus the baby ended up in NICU for a week with blood sugar issues.

Bloody hell. For comparison I was hospitalised at 25 weeks in Australia with complications, had totally uncomplicated c-section at 27 weeks, baby in NICU for extended period (months, not weeks). I paid ~$250 out of pocket which was for some weird cost that I forget the specifics of - and that would have been waived if I was low income and hadn't entered the public system as a private patient. Private obstetric care here is $6-8K out of pocket - in the unlikely event I had another child I would go public (the main difference ends up being continuity of care, and slightly better hospital accommodation) given I'd go straight into the high-risk stream and be seeing the same specialists all the time anyway. It infuriates me that instead of getting off their arses and working out a universal healthcare system that would benefit the entire population these Republican idiots choose to focus on something that will impoverish many families and likely lead to increased rates of health issues from pregnancy and birth complications, all so they can pat themselves on the back for "saving babies". You want lower rates of abortion? Provide effective and accessible contraception. Provide parental leave, fully paid. Provide sick leave, ffs, so pregnant women aren't exposed to higher risk. Provide secure affordable housing. Provide education. Provide childcare. Provide better services to help families and people living with disability.

Do something, anything, to show that it's actually the post-born human babies, children and adults you care about.

[meep]

I am still reeling. Do my fellow blue-state women realize we only still have our right on a state-level? Yes, our right was taken away too, at the federal level! The freaking federal level! How are people back to normal already? Insane. I feel sick to my stomach for all the women living in red states. 😓

For my fellow Americans, July 4th ideas:

• Simply don't celebrate. Valid option. 
• Attend celebrations and engage in thoroughly entertaining conversational discourse, "I am celebrating the inevitable heat death of the universe due to my rights being taken away!"
• Wear all black or wear a green bandana (symbol of abortion rights) or some type of shirt/outfit that relates to pride for your state/city/neighborhood instead of the country. 
• Refuse to sing anthems or say pledges (this might be a good one to enact perpetually). 
• Participate in the July 4th boycott (not buying anything except necessities). 

Do not let this go. Because the conservatives won't stop. 

[libgirl2]

1 hour ago, meep said:

I am still reeling. Do my fellow blue-state women realize we only still have our right on a state-level? Yes, our right was taken away too, at the federal level! The freaking federal level! How are people back to normal already? Insane. I feel sick to my stomach for all the women living in red states. 😓

For my fellow Americans, July 4th ideas:

• Simply don't celebrate. Valid option. 
• Attend celebrations and engage in thoroughly entertaining conversational discourse, "I am celebrating the inevitable heat death of the universe due to my rights being taken away!"
• Wear all black or wear a green bandana (symbol of abortion rights) or some type of shirt/outfit that relates to pride for your state/city/neighborhood instead of the country. 
• Refuse to sing anthems or say pledges (this might be a good one to enact perpetually). 
• Participate in the July 4th boycott (not buying anything except necessities). 

Do not let this go. Because the conservatives won't stop. 

IN all honesty, I rarely celebrate much on the 4th. I did in earlier years but not for awhile. Sure, I have the day off. I'll probably stay in and watch a couple of movies, read. No fireworks or community parties.  

And no, they won't stop. Everyone has to live under their beliefs. 

Edited June 28, 2022 by libgirl2

[WiseGirl]

2 hours ago, meep said:

Because the conservatives won't stop. 

And this is what fucking scares me the most.

My Canadian colleague is moving back to Canada. I asked her to please get a place bug enough for refugees.

[Alisamer]

17 hours ago, CrazyMumma said:

Hey,  I'm Australian and I'm wondering how much an abortion costs versus how much it costs to give birth in hospital in America without insurance?

I feel like this abortion law is war on the poor. 

Warning, this is long.

So I just took a quick look at my insurance carrier just to see what the options are. I put in that I would be looking at relatively high use of health care, as a pregnant person would. Keep in mind all these numbers are estimates, and depend on various factors like age. They might be less for a younger person who does not smoke. They will be significantly higher for someone who is older and does smoke. Different areas, different states, etc, there's a ton of variability here. These are just examples as a reference to help those outside the US understand this shitshow a little better. 

Most of the plans I saw have a $6500 - $8700 out of pocket maximum cost. That means that basically, chances are if you are pregnant and have a hospital delivery, you're going to pay that much. After that, insurance is supposed to cover everything*. This also is for all other health care in the year, as well, so not just maternity care. 

There are also "deductibles", which are basically minimums you have to pay by yourself before Insurance kicks in for anything the ACA does not mandate it cover. So you get a free visit to your primary care doctor for basic preventative care. It should cover pap smears and mammograms, but the younger you are the less likely those are to be covered yearly, they might be on a less frequent basis. It looks like many plans are covering mental health care more or less completely. Generally any specialist visit is going to cost you something, any urgent care, any emergency room, etc. Those all add up toward the deductible and the out of pocket maximum. Prescription costs might be discounted, they might not. If they are, you'll have to go to certain pharmacies that take your insurance. They might count toward your deductible. (Or, you could pay out of pocket for them at the cheapest place you can find, which is what I do. That $4 a month isn't going to make much of a difference with a huge deductible. This totally depends on the medication - mine is $4. Some might be $1000+. God help you if you need Epi Pens.)

So you might have a deductible the same as your out of pocket cost. Those are the higher out of pocket ones. So you spend $8700 and then insurance kicks in. This will cost you $400 - $500 a month, for this policy. So $8700 plus the monthly premium you pay. 

The better coverage might not have a deductible, and has only a $6500 max out of pocket! Doctor visits are a set co-pay ($20 - 50 each visit), specialist visits are $40 - $75 each visit. You also get discounted prescriptions. A trip to emergency will be $500 plus 20% of the ambulance charge. Urgent care will be $50 each time you go. X-rays, $100. Bloodwork, $50. After the max is met, then everything after that should be covered by insurance. 

The kicker? That insurance costs $950 a month.

So, you pay nearly $12000 a year to the insurance company, before even considering any other costs. 

The lucky people in the US get insurance through their workplaces, and their workplaces pay those costs as a benefit. But if you work for a small business, own your own business, are working for a big business as a "contractor", etc... that's all on you. The insurance marketplace has subsidies to help those of us who make less money (my premium is covered completely - but it puts me in a position where if I get a raise at work, I might actually LOSE money - earn an extra $300 a month and end up actually taking home $300 LESS a month because I might lose the subsidy and have to pay out of pocket for my insurance premiums).

But basically keep in mind, any time you see an American share what they paid for healthcare, and it is accompanied by "I/she/we have decent/good insurance" that means that somebody is paying $5000 - $15000+ per year on TOP of that, in insurance premiums. It might be them, it might be their employer, it might be their parent (if they are young enough to be on parents insurance), it might be their spouse, it might be the taxpayers if they are in public office, but somebody is shelling out to the insurance company for the privilege of paying somewhat less (insurance has "negotiated rates" which are less than the unbelievably high regular rates) for healthcare. 

*And I often say "supposed to pay" or "supposed to cover" because the insurance company's purpose is to refuse to pay as much as they can get away with. Some things you have to have pre-approval. Some drugs or treatments you have to try less effective things first, even if you have tried them before and know they don't work, before insurance will grudgingly cover an actual effective treatment. Some things have to be billed a certain way. Some things have to be worded on an invoice a certain way. Some things just mysteriously aren't covered and you don't know why.  It is not uncommon for someone who is having health issues or helping a family member with health issues to basically spend hours and hours and HOURS a week on the phone with the insurance company, trying to hash out why this wasn't covered and why the full amount wasn't paid for this other thing, and getting pre-approval for this procedure, and arguing with them that no, this other similar medication will not do well enough to replace the one your doctor prescribed. 

Handling health insurance is like walking through a labyrith blindfolded. There are hazards everywhere to trip you up. The policy says it covers this thing - but the rep on the phone says no. The rep the next day says it does, but the doctor's office coded it wrong on the invoice. The doctors office says they coded it correctly, and the insurance is just being a pain. The insurance company asks for a doctor's letter. etc.. etc. etc. 

It can take literally months to years of wrangling sometimes to get insurance to cover what you are paying them to cover. In the meantime, you are getting billed for that cost every month, and risking it going to collections and harming your financial situation.

 

And generally? Elective abortion is NOT covered. If it's an ectopic pregnancy it likely will be covered. A missed miscarriage? They might be willing to pay for the drugs or surgery to complete the miscarriage, but chances are you'll end up having to prove it was actually a miscarriage. Health of the fetus? Hm. Maybe. Health of the mother? Maybe. Partially. If you've met your deductible and your out of pocket max and the doctor's office codes it correctly and the planets align correctly. 

17 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Abortion pills are supposedly $100 or so (I've taken one component for a GYN issue and my insurance made me pay $25. I've heard that surgical abortions depend on a lot of factors. I read a story where a woman had to have a late term abortion in the eighth month due to a catastrophic issue with the fetus. She had to pay $10,000 plus plane tickets to Colorado and a hotel for two nights. She said she was lucky because her parents and her husband's parents were able to help financially since they had to travel in less than three days from the diagnosis of the fetal problem.

That's the other thing - "late term" abortions - IE those done because the baby is not compatible with life and will suffer during birth and any short life they have, and the kindest thing to do is to end the pregnancy while they are warm and safe before they spend whatever time they have in intense pain, are not going to be covered. And there are only like 2 places, in the US that do them. And it's not a quick or inexpensive procedure. So, $10000 or so for the procedure, plus plane tickets, plus a hotel for at least 2-3 days...

Edited June 28, 2022 by Alisamer

[Destiny]

39 minutes ago, Alisamer said:

And generally? Elective abortion is NOT covered.

You already covered the insanity of our system in vast detail, but I just have to point out how ridiculous this is. The pills for a medication abortion are not terribly expensive. It makes NO sense that they wouldn't want to cover it when the alternative is more expensive maternal healthcare plus a delivery. It's just another thing that is broken about our system, and not just on this issue. Insurance doesn't want to pay for things that would prevent them from paying for something more expensive down the line.

Edited June 28, 2022 by Destiny

[GreyhoundFan]

51 minutes ago, Alisamer said:

That's the other thing - "late term" abortions - IE those done because the baby is not compatible with life and will suffer during birth and any short life they have, and the kindest thing to do is to end the pregnancy while they are warm and safe before they spend whatever time they have in intense pain, are not going to be covered. And there are only like 2 places, in the US that do them. And it's not a quick or inexpensive procedure. So, $10000 or so for the procedure, plus plane tickets, plus a hotel for at least 2-3 days...

The woman in the article I mentioned (sorry, I don't remember where I saw it) said that the disease her fetus had, which hadn't been detected with earlier tests was one that would cause death within a day or so of birth. She asked the doctor if the baby would just spend that time sleeping and that he looked uncomfortable before replying that babies with this issue are in so much pain they can't sleep. That was what made her decide to abort. I can't imagine how horrifying that was to hear. And, yes, it was a two day process for the abortion.

[GreyhoundFan]

Normally I get angry when men talk over women, but I didn't mind it here:

 

[libgirl2]

11 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

The woman in the article I mentioned (sorry, I don't remember where I saw it) said that the disease her fetus had, which hadn't been detected with earlier tests was one that would cause death within a day or so of birth. She asked the doctor if the baby would just spend that time sleeping and that he looked uncomfortable before replying that babies with this issue are in so much pain they can't sleep. That was what made her decide to abort. I can't imagine how horrifying that was to hear. And, yes, it was a two day process for the abortion.

So I guess lesson is better the baby is born and spends its short life in agony? 

[Alisamer]

19 minutes ago, Destiny said:

It's just another thing that is broken about our system, and not just on this issue. Insurance doesn't want to pay for things that would prevent them from paying for something more expensive down the line.

Yep. It's madness. Not nearly the same, but a symptom of the same problem:

I had to go to the health department for travel vaccinations and pay out of pocket for malaria prevention, because insurance would apparently rather risk me catching some dire disease while out of the country than shell out a few bucks to help prevent it. Which, sure, I could just stay home and not have that issue, but you'd think the thousands and thousands I'd paid in premiums could contribute IDK, $20 toward malaria pills or a Typhoid vaccine.

They'll pay for expensive maternity care (after you've put in your part) rather than pay a couple hundred bucks for a medical abortion. 

It's all gambling. They refuse to cover abortion, knowing that most people who need one will find a way on their own somehow. They are gambling on the fact that very few pregnant people who want abortions will find out it's not covered and go on to have a complicated pregnancy and difficult birth and thousands -to-millions in hospital bills. Meanwhile the rest of us are rolling the dice... should we pay the thousands a year insurance premiums, just in case we get sick or have a car accident? For many people the answer is "no, either situation would bankrupt me so I might as well save the money on the premiums in case I DON'T get sick."

Even if abortion wasn't politically fraught, I suspect they'd rarely cover it unless forced to. 

AND - one thing I forgot in that very long post about insurance - networks. If your doctor is not in the correct "network" or in the correct list, insurance can refuse to pay. If your doctor IS in network, but without your knowledge the lab they use to do blood tests isn't, they can refuse to pay that. It's another way insurance tries not to pay if they can get away with it. 

[GreyhoundFan]

6 minutes ago, libgirl2 said:

So I guess lesson is better the baby is born and spends its short life in agony? 

That's what rethuglikans believe.

 

"CVS, Rite Aid ration emergency contraceptives after demand spikes"

Quote

CVS and Rite Aid have begun rationing emergency contraceptives amid a spike in demand just days after the Supreme Court ended the constitutional right to abortion.

CVS said it will temporarily limit the purchase of Plan B and Aftera to three packs per customer. A spokesperson said Monday that while the drugstore chain has “ample supply” of the products both online and in-store, the cap is meant to “ensure equitable access and consistent supply on store shelves.”

Rite Aid also is limiting purchases to three per customer, a spokesperson said Monday, also citing rising demand.

Walgreens’s website showed Tuesday that two emergency contraceptives — Plan B and Take Action — were out of stock for shipping but available for pickup and same-day delivery in certain stores. A spokeswoman said Monday that purchases are not limited at the time as the company could still meet the demand in-store. “We are working to restock online inventory from ship-to-home.” The grocery chain Kroger notes on its website that Plan B is not available for shipping and that in-store stocks are low.

The Supreme Court on Friday overturned the fundamental right to abortion established nearly 50 years ago in Roe v. Wade, leaving states free to drastically reduce or outlaw the procedure. Thirteen states had trigger laws in place when the ruling came down, and they immediately took effect in several states, halting abortion care.

The ruling does not affect emergency contraceptives like Plan B One-Step, which are used to prevent pregnancy by temporarily delaying ovulation if taken within 72 hours of sexual activity. No prescription or identification is required to purchase them, nor is there an age requirement.

But after Friday’s ruling, health advocates, legal experts and officials have raised concerns that other efforts may be taken to curtail people’s rights to contraception.

At Target and Walmart, the Plan B pill is eligible for shipping and pickup, but the time of delivery varies across locations. It can also be purchased directly on the Plan B website, but it is only eligible for four-to-six-day shipping.

 

[libgirl2]

16 minutes ago, Alisamer said:

AND - one thing I forgot in that very long post about insurance - networks. If your doctor is not in the correct "network" or in the correct list, insurance can refuse to pay. If your doctor IS in network, but without your knowledge the lab they use to do blood tests isn't, they can refuse to pay that. It's another way insurance tries not to pay if they can get away with it. 

A few years ago, I was in the hospital for surgery. Every day, a doctor would come to see how I was doing. They spent a whopping 10 minutes at most just checking my vitals, asking how I was doing. 

When my bill arrived, one of the doctors who saw me three times was not in network and I was charged nearly $300 a day for him to see me. My husband who is in claims helped me argue the point with my insurance and luckily they took that off my bill. I mean, you are in the hospital, like you think to ask "are you in network?"! What if I was in a coma? 

I said if ever, God forbid, I am in again, it will be the first question I ask (as long as I am conscious). 

Edited June 28, 2022 by libgirl2

[GreyhoundFan]

"Frustration, anger rising among Democrats over caution on abortion"

Quote

Just hours after the Supreme Court decision ending 50 years of abortion rights, President Biden outlined his ideal response: Elect more Democrats. “This fall, Roe is on the ballot,” Biden said at the White House. “Personal freedoms are on the ballot. The right to privacy, liberty, equality, they’re all on the ballot.”

A short distance away, House Democrats gathered on the steps of the U.S. Capitol to sing a heartfelt rendition of “God Bless America” to celebrate the passage of a modest gun control bill -- a moment that felt tone deaf to many Democrats given the judicial bombshell that had just landed.

To an increasingly vocal group of frustrated Democrats, activists and even members of Congress, such responses by party leaders have been strikingly inadequate to meet a moment of crisis. They criticize the notion that it is on voters to turn out in November when they say Democrats are unwilling to push boundaries and upend the system in defense of hard-won civil liberties.

“We have Democrats that are doing the opposite, you know? They just aren’t fighting,” Rep. Cori Bush (D-Mo.) said. “When people see that, what’s going to make them show up to vote? We can’t just tell people, ‘Well, just vote — vote your problems away.’ Because they’re looking at us and saying, ‘Well, we already voted for you.’”

Progressive lawmakers, including Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), have outlined several actions they want to see Democrats embrace: Building abortion clinics on federal land. Funding people to seek abortions out of state. Limiting the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction or expanding its membership. Ending the filibuster.

“We can do it!” Ocasio-Cortez tweeted recently after listing some of these measures. “We can at least TRY.”

Warren called on Biden to declare a national medical emergency, and she said the administration could establish Planned Parenthood outposts on the edge of national parks. “The point is the acknowledgment of the emergency situation and the urgency of getting help out,” she said in an interview. “People need help immediately.”

Biden and his team have signaled discomfort with many of these ideas, particularly any far-reaching overhaul of the Supreme Court. Asked by reporters recently if he thinks the Supreme Court is “broken,” Biden said only, “I think the Supreme Court has made some terrible decisions.”

A senior White House official said Biden is simply being honest with the public about what he can do unilaterally, adding that the president is “taking major actions under executive authority as he fights this extreme decision very hard — but being clear and honest that only Congress can fix the situation.”

White House officials note that the administration has moved to protect access to the so-called abortion pill even in states that try to ban it, and that the president has pledged to protect women who seek to travel across state lines to get an abortion.

The official said that while the proposal to set up abortion clinics on federal lands was “well-intentioned,” it could put pregnant people and providers at risk, and that in states where abortion is illegal, women and providers who are not federal employees could be prosecuted. Some legal experts have also raised questions about whether such a proposal would stand up in court, and White House officials worry it would violate the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits the use of federal funds for abortion except if a pregnant person’s life is in danger or if the pregnancy results from rape or incest.

Some activists acknowledge Biden’s ability to act is limited. Only Congress can codify abortion rights nationwide, and the Senate, where the filibuster requires 60 votes to pass almost all legislation, is split 50-50 between the parties.

But many abortion rights supporters say Republicans have routinely broken the rules in recent years and benefited enormously from it — for example, by blocking President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court pick — and that for Democrats to continue observing the niceties amounts to unilateral disarmament.

“We are dealing with one side that is undermining the very essence of what it means to be a country that roots itself in this philosophy of equal protection under the law. You cannot battle that if folks on the other side are always moderating, modulating and compromising. It’s not the age we’re in,” said the Rev. William Barber, a North Carolina preacher who is co-chair of the Poor People’s Campaign.

“You fight a crisis until the crisis is over,” Barber added. “You can’t overreach when you’re at the bottom, and these folks have taken us to the bottom.”

If Biden pursued aggressive executive actions to expand abortion access, even if those moves were ultimately overturned by a court, it would energize supporters and signal to voters that Democrats are putting up a fight, advocates said.

Kurt Bardella, a former Republican who now consults for Democrats, said party leaders cannot be afraid of bold actions because of potential legal challenges.

“Democrats start with the question of, ‘Are we allowed to do this or not?’ And I think Democratic voters will forgive you if you try and later on it turns out a court strikes it down,” Bardella said. “But at least you tried in the meantime to keep things in place and head toward the next election. What they won’t forgive is if you keep asking them to keep you in power but you don’t do anything with it, or at least try to do something with it.”

The divisions about how to respond to the Supreme Court ruling exposed fractures among the Democratic Party that often fall along familiar generational, ideological and strategic fault lines.

At one end is Biden, who has long been tethered to the traditions and institutions of the federal government. He has shown a reluctance to dismantle the Senate filibuster, even when it comes to issues as basic to his party as voting rights. Biden has said he believes that increasing the total number of Supreme Court justices, while tempting to a party in power, is ultimately perilous and could lead to the erosion of other norms when Republicans regain control of Washington.

But a growing number of liberals say that unless Democratic leaders show a willingness to adopt more creative ways of pushing through their agenda, their most loyal voters will have little reason to turn out in the midterm congressional elections.

“It’s really important right now that they show they’re fighting for people, so people have a reason to go vote for them in November. The goodwill of voters is not going to last that long — it’s lasted for years,” said Nelini Stamp, director of strategy and partnerships for the Working Families Party, a prominent left-leaning group. “People don’t want to hear, ‘Vote for Democrats.’ They want to hear what folks are going to do. We want Biden to use the full power of his administration, even if he might get the court’s pushback. We want to see people fighting for us.”

Bush said she remembers the “gut punch” she felt when she heard about the Supreme Court ruling. An activist before being elected to Congress during the protests over George Floyd’s 2020 killing at the hands of police, Bush said she immediately began to consider what actions to take.

She had already sent Biden a letter last week ahead of the ruling, along with 19 other Black congresswomen, urging the president to “use any and all executive authorities to address the public health crisis our nation will face if Roe v. Wade is dismantled.” She said she and her progressive colleagues will continue to push leaders in the House to vote on myriad bills protecting abortion rights, to back up their election message that Democrats are the party that delivers.

Some Democrats note that any such bills would immediately die in the Senate. But others say it’s critical to show voters what the party would do if it had even slightly bigger majorities.

In a letter to colleagues Monday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) outlined specific legislation that leaders are considering in the coming months. They include shielding women from criminal prosecution if they travel out of state to seek an abortion and protecting women’s personal data stored in reproductive health apps, in case state lawmakers try to access that information to determine if a woman has gotten an abortion.

Pelosi kept the door open for more provisions upon lawmakers’ return to Washington in July, but put the onus on the Senate to eliminate the filibuster and pass legislation codifying Roe v. Wade, which the House passed last year. Sens. Joe Manchin III of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona have been the Democrats most resistant to eliminating the filibuster, and some Democrats say electing additional senators from states like Pennsylvania and Wisconsin could establish a majority that would enact such a move.

More than 30 Senate Democrats signed a letter led by Warren and Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) to Biden that called for “bold action,” adding “You have the power to fight back and lead a national response to this devastating decision.”

Some activists said Democratic leaders’ exhortation to vote for them to save abortion rights echoes the refrain activists heard on police reform in the wake of Floyd’s killing and on protecting voting rights — two major initiatives that have fallen short despite the narrow Democratic majorities in Washington.

“It’s very similar to what happened in 2020: ‘Go back to the voting booths.’ … It always comes back to ‘Now you, the individual, do something,’” said Paris Hatcher, executive director for Black Feminist Future. “But we’ve elected these people who are in office at this very moment to take action on things like this. It becomes a very passive way to pass the buck when we have elected them to make things happen that center on the well-being of the people.”

 

[FluffySnowball]

I’m tired to type this stuff out myself today, but these two posts make good points in my opinion. 

[GreyhoundFan]

"Pelosi has the right idea on abortion. The Senate must follow."

Quote

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) did not get to where she is by misreading the public mood. She understands well how unpopular Republicans’ support for upending Roe v. Wade is. And she will make Republicans face the consequences of their radicalism.

In a Dear Colleague letter released on Monday, Pelosi writes that she intends to bring several abortion measures to the floor. First, she will bring legislation that “protects women’s most intimate and personal data stored in reproductive health apps” to address fears that such information “could be used against women by a sinister prosecutor in a state that criminalizes abortion.” Pelosi is certainly right that Americans are worried about the government or big business accumulating data on them. Will Republicans allow the government to seize such personal information?

Second, Pelosi will bring forward legislation that makes clear “Americans have the Constitutional right to travel freely and voluntarily throughout the United States.” The targets here, of course, are red states where antiabortion zealots aim to reach beyond their borders by punishing women who seek abortions in other states.

Third, Pelosi will once more force a vote on the Women’s Health Protection Act, which she describes as the “landmark legislation to enshrine Roe v. Wade into the law of the land.” She might also consider bringing up legislation to correct some of the most egregious results of Republicans’ agenda. For example, how about a bill that ensures minors who are victims of rape and incest are guaranteed access to abortion? Or that allows a woman to end a pregnancy if it poses “serious health consequences”?

Pelosi is not stopping there. She writes: “In his disturbing concurrence, Justice Clarence Thomas confirmed many of our deepest fears about where this decision might lead: taking aim at additional long-standing precedent and cherished privacy rights, from access to contraception and in-vitro fertilization to marriage equality. Legislation is being introduced to further codify freedoms which Americans currently enjoy.”

This could force Republicans to vote on preserving the right to same-sex marriage, private sexual conduct, contraception and in-vitro fertilization. In other words, Pelosi will require Republicans to either repudiate Thomas’s extremism (which might offend their extreme MAGA base) or adopt positions that will alarm a great number of Americans. Democrats running against Republican incumbents who campaigned as “moderates” would no doubt appreciate these defining votes to help voters understand just how radical the GOP’s agenda has become.

Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) should force votes on these measures as well. Let Republicans on the ballot in 2022 explain why they voted against women’s reproductive rights and preemptive protections for marriage equality.

For Republicans in Senate contests whose extreme forced-birth position is greatly out of step, these votes could provide much needed clarity. In Wisconsin, for example, nearly 60 percent of voters want abortion legal in some or all cases. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), however, wants a total ban on abortions. Even in relatively conservative Ohio, the issue could be explosive. Republican Senate candidate J.D. Vance was excoriated for a tweet mocking women in which he said, “If your worldview tells you that it’s bad for women to become mothers but liberating for them to work 90 hours a week in a cubicle at the New York Times or Goldman Sachs, you’ve been had.”

Pelosi has hit on precisely the right tactic to push back MAGA Republicans: Make them own their radicalism, and see how voters react.

 

[Alisamer]

28 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

But many abortion rights supporters say Republicans have routinely broken the rules in recent years and benefited enormously from it — for example, by blocking President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court pick — and that for Democrats to continue observing the niceties amounts to unilateral disarmament.

“We are dealing with one side that is undermining the very essence of what it means to be a country that roots itself in this philosophy of equal protection under the law. You cannot battle that if folks on the other side are always moderating, modulating and compromising. It’s not the age we’re in,” said the Rev. William Barber, a North Carolina preacher who is co-chair of the Poor People’s Campaign.

“You fight a crisis until the crisis is over,” Barber added. “You can’t overreach when you’re at the bottom, and these folks have taken us to the bottom.”

This is super important, right here. 

Democrats are, as a group, very concerned about inclusiveness and not offending others. Which is noble. Except the opposing side is willing to team up with literal Nazis to get what they want. 

I think it's time to take the gloves off. If a group on your side does or says something that offends you, don't let it derail the path to the end goal. Remember it, point it out even, possibly. But deal with the big problems first. I know that sucks. I know people who are already oppressed are going to feel more oppressed. There's going to be language that excludes trans men who are capable of pregnancy and imagery that focuses too much on middle class white women. There always is. But I think we've gone back 50 years, so we have to think back 50 years, fight old school. Get back what was lost, and then in the process expand it to include everyone. 

Like, Republicans are like - "You believe in space lasers? You think JFK is still alive? You are a literal Nazi with swastikas tattooed on your head? Come on, at least we have the same end goal!"

Democrats are like - "This is an outrage! Women's rights are being trampled!" and then there's "not just women!" and "handmaid imagery is racially excluding!" and "don't stoop to their level!" 

I get it. I just think right now, we need to work on the big picture. If you are starving to death, you don't worry about whether the food you find is organic or pesticide free, you just eat it. If you are on a desert island, you don't turn down the first ship to stop by because they're headed a different direction than you want to go, you just focus on getting off the island. 

Republicans are focusing on getting their agenda through, even if it means teaming up with people who are awful, evil, and terrible. I think Democrats need to set aside differences temporarily to get back the rights we are losing. And then make sure they are inclusive and progressive! 

[dramallama]

A brief moment of levity

My answer is "Just a Girl" by No Doubt.  I saw someone on Facebook comment "Man, I Feel Like a Woman" by Shania Twain, and I thought that was also an inspired choice.