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

[lumpentheologie]

4 hours ago, Jana814 said:

I’m pro anyone & my heart goes out them who has to make the most difficult decision of their lives. 

I'm sure you didn't mean it this way but it comes off a bit paternalistic to assume having an abortion is the most difficult decision of someone's life. I know a lot of women who have had abortions and it wasn't a difficult decision for any of them. They were completely sure they didn't want to become parents and never considered going through with a pregnancy. I'm sure it is a difficult decision for some people, but I think for many, perhaps even the majority, it's not. 

I think it plays into the hands of the forced-birth movement to assume that women who become pregnant must have at least some desire to keep the pregnancy, and therefore abortion is a difficult decision for them. Because in their minds if women are conflicted about it then forcing them to keep the pregnancy isn't that bad. 

[Smash!]

6 hours ago, WiseGirl said:

 

Imagine Hillary Clinton was elected in 2016 instead of 45? She‘s spot on in that interview. 

Together with the quote of Martin Niemöller @samurai_sarah posted we know the direction this country is heading. 

 

[WiseGirl]

This seems the best thread for this one.

 

[Smash!]

Just a reminder for all of us Europeans who think want‘s happening in the US could never happen here: Poland and I believe Hungary as well banned abortion in recent years. In France far right candidate Marine Le Pen was the opponent of Emanuel Macron in the election just a few weeks ago. In Germany an abortion is according to Section 218 of the German Criminal Code (StGB) generally illegal. However, it remains exempt from punishment under certain conditions on the basis of the so-called counseling regulation. 

[Howl]

Many thanks to the FJer who alerted me to @TiaLevingsWriter on Instagram.  She grew up in IBLP fundamentalism, married into patriarchy (first 5 years of marriage = 4 babies), escaped and is an immensely insightful writer about it.  Link to her website HERE.  Simple layout with links to topics. This is her comment today.

If you're wondering how far Christian Fundamentalists are willing to go, Roe is the start, not the destination

"And yet those of us out here loving religious freedom and plurality and independence and freedom and progressive Christianity naively trust they’ll be satisfied. They’ll stop. This won’t mean the end of contraception and gay marriage. Interracial marriage isn’t threatened. Pregnancy tests aren’t threatened. Women don’t go to jail for miscarriage.

Those things are already happening.

It’s not like they make us guess. Roe v. Wade is a key in a lock on a gate to a path that leads to Christian dominion. They teach it actively in schools all over the world. They strategize and train. They groom. What they don’t do is hide.

Fundamentalists don’t stop. There is no “enough” that satisfies them. This is why McConnell blocked Garland. Why Coney Barrett misrepresented her views. Why millions voted in a shiny golden calf to serve their hope this overturn would solve this.

Roe is the start of the dominionist plan. It was the hurdle they had to cross to unlock the gate. Its not the destination. Look at how they run their homes: that’s the goal for America."

Edited May 6, 2022 by Howl

[samurai_sarah]

2 hours ago, Smash! said:

Just a reminder for all of us Europeans who think want‘s happening in the US could never happen here: Poland and I believe Hungary as well banned abortion in recent years. In France far right candidate Marine Le Pen was the opponent of Emanuel Macron in the election just a few weeks ago. In Germany an abortion is according to Section 218 of the German Criminal Code (StGB) generally illegal. However, it remains exempt from punishment under certain conditions on the basis of the so-called counseling regulation. 

That's very important for us Europeans to remember! Being German, I personally loathe the cop-out that's Section 218, and don't get me started on still not being able to provide women with factual information about abortion. It annoys me endlessly, not least of all in light of how quickly Poland turned draconian.

 

[Alisamer]

1 hour ago, Howl said:

Pregnancy tests aren’t threatened. Women don’t go to jail for miscarriage.

I hadn't thought of this, but damn. You bet coming soon will be requirements for doctors to report all positive pregnancy tests to a state committee. Women are already deleting period tracker apps just in case that info gets shared. 

Who wants to bet someone is working on an at-home pregnancy test that immediately reports to a service somewhere, that would be easy for state governments to require reporting from? The tech is probably being worked on for Covid tests, pregnancy tests would be easy to add. 

It would be super easy to slip down the slope toward criminalizing miscarriage on the slightest possible evidence, which would essentially lead to laws (though possibly unwritten ones) regulating what a woman can do, eat, etc. while pregnant. It seems like a stretch, but I don't think it's that far of a stretch, especially with places like Texas going all out against abortion. 

[thoughtful]

12 hours ago, samurai_sarah said:

"First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
     Because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
     Because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
     Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."

-Martin Niemoeller (1946)

Pastor Niemoeller was speaking about Nazi-Germany, but it's true anywhere.

 

That was the first thing I thought of when I read the statement from Hilary Clinton.

I'm sure it's an idea that has been expressed before and since, but his version is so often quoted that it sticks in my mind.

[libgirl2]

3 minutes ago, thoughtful said:

That was the first thing I thought of when I read the statement from Hilary Clinton.

I'm sure it's an idea that has been expressed before and since, but his version is so often quoted that it sticks in my mind.

Same for me too. 

Now Abbot wants to challenge the SCOTUS ruling for educating all including undocumented children. That is a real prolife stance isn't it? 🙄

[Audrey2]

Well Louisiana is putting forth the idea for what I have said and argued with the anti-abortion friend that I have. He kept insisting that it would only be the doctors and healthcare providers who are targeted but I've asked him what is to stop women from being charged with murder?

Louisiana lawmakers advance bill that would classify abortion as homicide 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/louisiana-lawmakers-advance-bill-classify-000809118.html

Spoiler

A bill advanced Wednesday by Louisiana legislators would classify abortion as a homicide, potentially allowing authorities to charge women and girls with murder and criminalize in vitro fertilization, critics said.

The bill, dubbed the Abolition of Abortion in Louisiana Act, passed 7-2 out of a state House subcommittee two days after Politico published a leaked Supreme Court draft opinion suggesting that the court is poised to overturn Roe v. Wade.

The bill will now move to a full House vote. The legislation would still need support from the Senate and the governor before it could become law.

Speaking at a hearing Wednesday, the bill’s sponsor, Danny McCormick, compared the move to flout federal laws protecting abortion to the state’s approval of medical marijuana.

"If more than 15 states can defy the federal government, we can do it to save the lives of innocent babies," he said. “We cannot wait for the Supreme Court to confirm that innocent babies have the right to life."

“The taking of a life is murder, and it is illegal," he added.

The bill’s text, which says the legislation aims to “ensure the right to life and equal protection of the laws to all unborn children from the moment of fertilization,” it instructs the state to disregard federal abortion rulings, including Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

Ellie Schilling, a Louisiana lawyer who represents reproductive health care providers, said at the hearing that the bill would amend state law to allow authorities to charge someone who is pregnant with homicide or criminal battery “at any stage of gestation,” according to Reuters.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana called the bill "blatantly unconstitutional" and said it would allow authorities to bring murder charges against people who get abortions or those who assist them.

Chris Kaiser, the group's advocacy director, said the bill could criminalize in vitro fertilization and various forms of birth control by defining a fertilized egg before implantation as a person, according to Reuters.

McCormick did not comment on the possibility of criminalizing IVF during Wednesday's hearing. His office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

 

Seems like a republican logical next step. After this I think there will be States who have a thorough investigation of each miscarriage.

 

[libgirl2]

11 minutes ago, Audrey2 said:

Well Louisiana is putting forth the idea for what I have said and argued with the anti-abortion friend that I have. He kept insisting that it would only be the doctors and healthcare providers who are targeted but I've asked him what is to stop women from being charged with murder?

Louisiana lawmakers advance bill that would classify abortion as homicide 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/louisiana-lawmakers-advance-bill-classify-000809118.html

  Reveal hidden contents

A bill advanced Wednesday by Louisiana legislators would classify abortion as a homicide, potentially allowing authorities to charge women and girls with murder and criminalize in vitro fertilization, critics said.

The bill, dubbed the Abolition of Abortion in Louisiana Act, passed 7-2 out of a state House subcommittee two days after Politico published a leaked Supreme Court draft opinion suggesting that the court is poised to overturn Roe v. Wade.

The bill will now move to a full House vote. The legislation would still need support from the Senate and the governor before it could become law.

Speaking at a hearing Wednesday, the bill’s sponsor, Danny McCormick, compared the move to flout federal laws protecting abortion to the state’s approval of medical marijuana.

"If more than 15 states can defy the federal government, we can do it to save the lives of innocent babies," he said. “We cannot wait for the Supreme Court to confirm that innocent babies have the right to life."

“The taking of a life is murder, and it is illegal," he added.

The bill’s text, which says the legislation aims to “ensure the right to life and equal protection of the laws to all unborn children from the moment of fertilization,” it instructs the state to disregard federal abortion rulings, including Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

Ellie Schilling, a Louisiana lawyer who represents reproductive health care providers, said at the hearing that the bill would amend state law to allow authorities to charge someone who is pregnant with homicide or criminal battery “at any stage of gestation,” according to Reuters.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana called the bill "blatantly unconstitutional" and said it would allow authorities to bring murder charges against people who get abortions or those who assist them.

Chris Kaiser, the group's advocacy director, said the bill could criminalize in vitro fertilization and various forms of birth control by defining a fertilized egg before implantation as a person, according to Reuters.

McCormick did not comment on the possibility of criminalizing IVF during Wednesday's hearing. His office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

 

Seems like a republican logical next step. After this I think there will be States who have a thorough investigation of each miscarriage.

 

Of course it will. I can't even imagine a poor woman facing the loss of her child then having to face an investigation! This so reminds me of Nazi Germany and the push to provide babies for the Reich. 

[Cartmann99]

The Biggest Lie Conservative Defenders of Alito’s Leaked Opinion Are Telling

Quote

The leaked copy of Justice Samuel Alito’s draft majority opinion overruling Roe v. Wade has unleashed a wave of concern about what the opinion would mean, not only for people who depend on the availability of abortion care but also for people who depend on other fundamental rights related to the 1973 ruling.

As President Joe Biden and legal commentators pointed out, Alito’s stated reasons for overruling Roe could seemingly be applied to overrule other precedents ranging from Obergefell v. Hodges, which recognized a right to marriage equality, to Lawrence v. Texas, which recognized a fundamental right for intimate relationships between consenting adults including adults of the same sex, to Griswold v. Connecticut, which recognized a fundamental right to contraception.

While conservative commentators have sought to minimize these fears, one of their main responses has exposed Alito’s draft majority opinion as nothing more than a lawless exercise of political power. They now claim that the court wouldn’t overrule those other precedents because, among other things, those other precedents are “politically popular.”

This, to be clear, is not a legal distinction. It’s merely a statement that public opinion and politics will dictate what the court’s conservative supermajority thinks it can get away with—respect for the law and neutral principles be damned.

The leaked draft opinion seemingly puts several other constitutional rights squarely in the court’s crosshairs. As Mark Joseph Stern argued, Alito’s broadside attack against “unenumerated rights” that aren’t “deeply rooted” in American history could be deployed against the right of same-sex couples to be intimate or to get married. Like the right to decide to have an abortion, the right of same-sex couples to be intimate or to get married isn’t explicitly mentioned in the text of the Constitution. There aren’t state constitutional provisions or state or federal court cases from the 1800s or early 1900s recognizing those rights either. And these other opinions, like Roe and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, are reasoned at a “high level of generality,” invoking concepts like dignity, destiny, and defining one’s own existence.

Indeed, that these concepts appear in the other opinions is one of the reasons Justice Clarence Thomas dissented in Lawrence, and why Thomas and Alito dissented in Obergefell. And given the Dobbs draft opinion’s cursory treatment of the doctrine of stare decisis, which ordinarily calls for the court to respect decisions around which people have built their lives, people rightfully worry about what fundamental rights the Supreme Court would come for next.

There’s no reason for concern, the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board and some conservative legal commentators have insisted. According to the Journal, “unlike Roe,” the decisions protecting contraception and marriage equality, “have … broad public acceptance” as evidenced by Gallup polls. And, commentators claimed, “public opinion on abortion remains deeply divided,” whereas same-sex marriage and contraception apparently now have broad public support. These claims, however, are at best factually incorrect. At worst, they amount to willful misdirection. A CNN poll from January shows that 69 percent of Americans want to keep Roe, and the Journal noted that 70 percent of Americans support marriage equality.

According to conservatives, the reason the conservative justices won’t follow up an opinion overruling Roe with opinions overruling Obergefell, Lawrence, and Griswold is not because the law or legal reasoning distinguishes those cases from one another. It’s because public opinion does—and the court will apparently overrule prior decisions only when it thinks it can get away with overruling them. Put another way: In an attempt to quash the criticism of Alito’s radical opinion, conservatives have instead shown just how political and lawless it is.

Leaked draft aside, the concern over the fate of other rights is warranted. Several conservative justices have already laid bare their views on birth control and same-sex marriage. Thomas and Alito have already called for the court to revisit Obergefell. And in his confirmation hearings, Justice Brett Kavanaugh referred to birth control as “abortion-inducing drugs.” In a previous majority opinion, Alito concluded that the federal contraception mandate was illegal because employers could reasonably view contraception as an abortifacient.

Republican legislatures, for their part, haven’t even waited until the ink is dry on a final opinion in Dobbs before beginning their push to overrule other rights as well. More than a dozen states are clamoring to enact anti-LGBTQ legislation like Florida’s “don’t say gay” law just as quickly as they are enacting abortion restrictions. Two days after the leak, Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas voiced support for revisiting the court’s 1982 ruling that held states may not exclude undocumented children from public education. The Texas legislature has already given notice for public hearings to review “any applicable precedents, and the legal landscape regarding the education of migrant children in Texas’s public schools.” Louisiana Republicans voted out of committee a bill making abortion a crime of homicide “from the moment of fertilization” and allowing prosecutors to charge patients with murder.

It’s also worth remembering that Republicans insisted, against all evidence, that none of the justices they were appointing would overrule Roe even while promising to appoint justices who would. President Donald Trump famously proclaimed to then-candidate Joe Biden that Biden had no idea where Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, stood on abortion. “You don’t know her view on Roe v. Wade,” the former president said. In the confirmation hearings for Kavanaugh, Republican Sen. Ben Sasse called it “hysteria” for progressives to stage protests calling attention to the future of Roe v. Wade.

If the Overton window on overruling Roe could move as quickly as it did, the same is surely possible for Obergefell, Lawrence, and Griswold.

It would be a relief if these (deeply contestable) assurances of the limited impact of a ruling like the draft opinion in Dobbs turn out to be true. But whether or not the potential fallout materializes, the conservative rhetoric only underscores that what’s really going on here is not the Supreme Court’s application of neutral legal principles, but rather a brazen assertion of raw political power.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

[Smee]

If personhood starts at fertilisation can someone who is like 4 weeks pregnant please take out a life insurance policy on their embryo and fight in the courts for insurance companies to be required to pay up if they miscarry? Or someone going through IVF, take out a policy on their embryos in case they don’t implant. 

[Miranda]

And also the child tax credit and claiming the embryo as a dependent on your tax return  should start in the year of conception, not the year of birth. So I guess embryos should be given social security numbers. 

[GreyhoundFan]

More hypocrisy:

[fraurosena]

Today there was a pro-choice protest on the Dam in Amsterdam, to show support for American women. 

(Dutch article)

Unrest amongst pro-choice in Netherlands due to debate in US

(translation under spoiler)

Spoiler

The possible disappearance of the nationwide right to abortion is the US is also leading to unrest amongst pro-choice people in the Netherlands, despite abortion becoming more accessible, due to the removal of the mandatory waiting time and the possibility of getting the abortion pill from one's GP.

Nevertheless, feministe Annemieke van Straalen (23), initiator the protest on the Dam in Amsterdam on Saturday, is worried. "The right to abortion is a human right, but as it turns out it's not as assured as all that. It is unimaginable that the right to abortion, which was so hard won, is once more in doubt. The anti-abortion lobby in the Netherlands is large too."

Devika Prtiman is one of the speakers at the protest on the Dam, where solidarity will be shown with pro-choice'ers in the US. She underwent two abortions herself and is thankful that this is possible in the Netherlands. "Now there is fear that the right to an abortion could be taken away again, as you can see happening in America right now." 

The illegal circuit

Each year about 30.000 women in the Netherlands choose an abortion. The 1984 abortion law states that abortion is allowed until the 24th week of pregnancy. After that a doctor may terminate a pregnancy only for very serious medical reasons, for example when the unborn is not viable. Late termination of pregnancy and termination of life of newborns are criminal acts. If the legal demands surrounding them aren't met, the AG can start criminal procedures.

Partiman would like to see that abortion was removed from the penal code. "We still haven't succeeded in getting it scrapped. Christian parties that are part of the current coalition have been preventing that for decades."

Femke van Straaten, manager at the Abortion Clinic Amsterdam, is also exasperated with the political intervention. "Politics keep on intervening in what in opinion is regular healthcare. That this can be turned back after 50 years -- as we are seeing right now in the US -- is incomprehensible. Abortion won't be exorcised, you'll simply get the illegal circuit."

Growing interest

Organizations against abortion in the Netherlands are seeing a growth in interest. Their records show their websites are getting more views, and the number of private and corporate donations are increasing. In 2018 Platform for Life received 36.000 euro for the Week of Life, a campaign to "Create awareness for unborn life and the underlying need of women who are contemplating an abortion".

In 2020 they received 182.000 euro. The number of participants of the March for Life is also growing. Between 2000 and 2015 about 1000 people participated, five years ago it was 3000 and in 2019 about 12.000 participants joined the march. 

The protest in Amsterdam for the right to abortion and self-determination is supported by knowledge-center Rutgers, Amnesty International, Women Inc and the organization behind the Dutch Women's March. Among the speakers at the protest were Chamber member Corinne Ellemeet, Rutgers director Marike van der Plas and Europarlementarian Samira Rafaela.

 

Edited May 7, 2022 by fraurosena

[Coconut Flan]

I like this approach.  Violating religious freedom could make a case maybe.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/Supreme-Court-s-Roe-ruling-would-trample-the-17155205.php

[WiseGirl]

The SCOTUS opinion uses the CDC's words to justify banning abortions? But how the hell is "domestic supply of infants" used in any context? I still can't wrap my head around it.

NYT has an article titled Abortion is a Business Issue

Edited May 7, 2022 by WiseGirl
Add text

[Smee]

1 hour ago, WiseGirl said:

The SCOTUS opinion uses the CDC's words to justify banning abortions? But how the hell is "domestic supply of infants" used in any context? I still can't wrap my head around it.

NYT has an article titled Abortion is a Business Issue

I’m tiring of the Handmaid’s tale/Gilead comparisons but when the argument is “we need to force women to have babies so rich people can adopt them because we’re low on supply”…

[WiseGirl]

FYI. Read the third paragraph if nothing else.

Edited May 8, 2022 by WiseGirl
added text

[SPHASH]

So glad SNL covered this

 

[samurai_sarah]

5 hours ago, WiseGirl said:

FYI. Read the third paragraph if nothing else.

I am glad that Conneticut has decided to go this way, but am saddened that this has been necessary at all.

[dramallama]

Mississippi governor doesn’t rule out banning contraception if Roe falls

Quote

Mississippi Gov. Tate Reeves (R) on Sunday refused to rule out the possibility that his state would ban certain forms of contraception, sidestepping questions about what would happen next if Roe v. Wade is overturned.

On CNN’s “State of the Union,” Reeves confirmed that, if the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, a trigger law passed in Mississippi in 2007 would go into effect that essentially outlaws abortions in the state, although it makes exceptions for rape and for the life of the mother.

When asked if Mississippi might next target the use of contraceptives such as the Plan B pill or intrauterine devices, Reeves demurred, saying that was not what the state was focused on “at this time.”

“My view is that the next phase of the pro-life movement is focusing on helping those moms that maybe have an unexpected and unwanted pregnancy,” Reeves said. “And while I’m sure there will be conversations around America regarding [contraceptives], it’s not something that we have spent a lot of time focused on.”

Reeves’s comments come days after Louisiana Republicans advanced a bill that would charge abortion as homicide and grant constitutional rights to a person “from the moment of fertilization.” That language could also restrict the use of emergency contraception and other methods that seek to prevent a fertilized embryo from implanting in the uterus.

On Sunday, Reeves said he thinks “life begins at conception” but repeatedly avoided answering whether he meant at the moment of an egg’s fertilization or when an embryo attaches to the womb.

“What I’m saying is, again, this is a debate that we can have once the actual court makes their ruling, once the actual words are on the page,” Reeves said. “We believe that the overturning of Roe is the correct decision by the court. And so, in Mississippi, we don’t — we don’t have laws on the books that would lead to arresting individuals or anything along those lines.”

While Mississippi’s trigger law banning abortion would include exceptions for rape and for the life of the mother, it does not include any exceptions for incest.

Reeves did not respond directly to questions about whether victims of incest should be forced to carry a child to term.

Reeves is not the only Republican leader looking ahead to what the overturn of Roe could mean for laws in their states. Many are grappling with the question of whether to include exceptions for rape and incest victims.

On ABC’s “This Week,” Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson (R) expressed uneasiness about his state’s ban, which makes exceptions for women facing medical emergencies but not for rape or incest cases.

“I expressed whenever I signed the law that I would prefer the rape and incest exception to be in there. And even though we have a trigger law I expect those exceptions to be a significant part of the debate in the future,” Hutchinson said.

Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.), who supports abortion restrictions but who has spoken out in the past about being a victim of rape, said she would support legislation that permits abortions for victims of rape and incest.

“When you realize what’s happened in your life, the trauma, the emotional, the mental, the physical trauma in a woman’s life, that decision — she should make that decision with her doctor and between her and her God,” Mace said on CBS’s “Face the Nation.” She noted that South Carolina’s law included those exceptions after she spoke up about her rape.

The issue has also prompted Rep. Henry Cuellar of Texas, the House’s lone antiabortion Democrat, to clarify his position.

“My faith will not allow me to support a ruling that would criminalize teenage victims of rape and incest,” Cuellar said in a recent statement. “That same faith will not allow me to support a ruling that would make a mother choose between her life and her child’s.”

The stunning leak of the Supreme Court’s draft opinion to overturn Roe has galvanized Senate Democrats to set up a vote this week to codify abortion rights into federal law — an effort that is expected to fail to gain the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster and pass.

“I think the question that voters are going to be asking is … who should make this decision?” Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) said Sunday on ABC’s “This Week.” “Should it be a woman and her doctor or a politician? Should it be [Sen.] Ted Cruz [(R-Tex.)] making this decision or a woman and her family? Where are women’s equal rights?”

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), who has been among the many Democrats to call for the filibuster to be eliminated to pass abortion rights legislation with only 50 votes, called it “the biggest fight of a generation.”

“If America’s people — America’s women and men who love them — do not fight right now, we will lose the basic right to make decisions, to have bodily autonomy, and to decide what our futures look like,” Gillibrand said Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

She also said the issue would be on the ballot in November's midterm elections.

“We need to make sure that every single voter understands that the Republican Party and [Senate Minority Leader] Mitch McConnell [(R-Ky.) do] not believe that their daughters, that their mothers, that their sisters have rights to make fundamental life-and-death decisions,” Gillibrand said. “We are half-citizens under this ruling. And if this is put into law, it changes the foundation of America.”

 

[Ozlsn]

8 hours ago, dramallama said:

My view is that the next phase of the pro-life movement is focusing on helping those moms that maybe have an unexpected and unwanted pregnancy,”

Oh good so they're going to provide state-funded paid parental leave, free universal healthcare, free child-care, extensive support for people living with disability etc? I look forward to watching that being implemented. /s

On 5/7/2022 at 11:31 AM, Smee said:

If personhood starts at fertilisation can someone who is like 4 weeks pregnant please take out a life insurance policy on their embryo and fight in the courts for insurance companies to be required to pay up if they miscarry? Or someone going through IVF, take out a policy on their embryos in case they don’t implant. 

Agreed. From the minute you find out you are pregnant take out a policy, claim them on tax, etc. You would think IVF and ART would be next to be banned, but let's face it, there's a lot of hypocrisy in the forced birth camp. 

On 5/8/2022 at 10:36 AM, Smee said:

I’m tiring of the Handmaid’s tale/Gilead comparisons but when the argument is “we need to force women to have babies so rich people can adopt them because we’re low on supply”…

It's certainly a jaw dropping argument.