Gilead is Real - The War on Women and Abortion Part 3

[NotQuiteMotY]

On 8/29/2022 at 3:36 PM, GreyhoundFan said:

This is awful. I'm postmenopausal, but in the past have had to take misoprostol in preparation for a procedure. I was lucky to not get pushback.

I had in preparation for getting an IUD once. Literally the pharmacist came to the register, asked if I was pregnant, and that was it. 

It's almost like different medications have different uses and doctors know better than politicians how to administer healthcare! /s

[AlmostSavedAtTacoBell]

6 hours ago, NotQuiteMotY said:

I had in preparation for getting an IUD once. Literally the pharmacist came to the register, asked if I was pregnant, and that was it. 

It's almost like different medications have different uses and doctors know better than politicians how to administer healthcare! /s

You mean like how I was prescribed birth control pills for endometriosis long before I was sexually active?  I am really worried that girls and women who suffer from endometriosis will be denied the relief I had available to me that saved me from passing out and/or missing school every month because of severe cramps and other period related issues.  (Thankfully I am one of the lucky women who was able to get pregnant and who had a big improvement after being pregnant.)  Having that medication was a game changer for me.  It may have already happened that someone has been denied life changing endometriosis treatment on bullshit "reasons".  

[GreyhoundFan]

"These Republicans cheered abortion policy going to states. They are also sponsoring a federal ban."

Quote

When the Supreme Court in June overturned Roe v. Wade, which in 1973 established a nationwide right to an abortion, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito wrote in his majority opinion for Dobbs v. Jackson that the legality of abortion would now be up to individual states. “The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion,” Alito said. “Roe and Casey [in 1992] arrogated that authority. We now overrule those decisions and return that authority to the people and their elected representatives.”

Many Republican foes of abortion celebrated the ruling as a victory for states’ rights. Yet since Alito’s draft opinion was leaked on May 2, 28 lawmakers have also signed onto a proposed nationwide ban — one that would impose abortion restrictions even in Democrat-led, pro-abortion rights states.

This would seem to be a direct contradiction to the idea that states could chart their own course. Blue states that have less restrictive laws in place suddenly would find those laws overridden by a federal law.

The Heartbeat Protection Act was introduced in Congress in February of 2021. The text of the law would require an ultrasound technician to check for cardiac activity before an abortion — and then prohibit the procedure if any activity can be detected. This would effectively ban most abortions, as many women would not realize they are pregnant until after this point. Some other laws proposed by Republicans would be even more restrictive.

As a reader service, here’s a full list of these lawmakers, along with their comments on Dobbs and the date they co-sponsored the Heartbeat Protection Act.

We repeatedly sought an explanation for the apparent contradiction, but only six lawmakers responded. Some said that their comments on Dobbs did not rule out a federal response such as the heartbeat law — while one said that Democrats’ efforts to push for abortion rights at a national level meant the issue will continue to be fought at the federal level. In some cases, the remarks are open to interpretation, so we have noted those. The names are presented in alphabetical order in each category.

Lawmakers with remarks that appear contradictory

Rep. Jack Bergman (Michigan) — co-sponsored June 16, 2022

Dobbs comment, in a Facebook post: “The ruling today on Roe v. Wade properly returns power to the states and ends decades of bad precedent.”

Explanation: No response.

Rep. Mike Bost (Illinois) — co-sponsored May 28

Dobbs comment, in a tweet: “I agree wholeheartedly with the Supreme Court’s decision to restore power to the American people to determine for themselves how abortion services are regulated in their state.”

Explanation: No response.

Rep. Ken Buck (Colorado) — co-sponsored May 27

Dobbs comment, in a news release: “The power to decide this profound moral question has officially returned to the states, where it will be debated and settled in the way it should be in our democratic society — by the people.”

Explanation: No response.

Rep. Tom Emmer (Minnesota) — co-sponsored July 11

Dobbs comment, in a statement: “Every life is precious, and the decision to defend it should remain with the states.”

Explanation: No response.

Rep. Russ Fulcher (Idaho) — co-sponsored June 16

Dobbs comment, in a tweet: The ruling “is a momentous victory for life and an affirmation of our federalist system. States, as the Constitutionally prescribed authority on this matter, will now have the opportunity to enact policies that promote a culture of life.”

Explanation: No response.

Rep. Paul A. Gosar (Arizona) — co-sponsored July 11

Dobbs comment, during a discussion at a church: “This is not a federal issue, this is a state issue. We the people. The states gave the federal government limited powers and we have to take them back.”

Explanation: No response.

Rep. Kevin Hern (Oklahoma) — co-sponsored July 12

Dobbs comment, in a statement: “The Supreme Court correctly reversed this unconstitutional decision and returned the question to the states.”

Explanation: No response.

Rep. Yvette Herrell (New Mexico) — co-sponsored June 16

Dobbs comment, in a statement: “Today, the Supreme Court has finally returned the question of abortion to the 50 states and restored the democratic right of Americans to defend the unborn.”

Explanation: No response.

Rep. Clay Higgins (Louisiana) — co-sponsored May 27

Dobbs comment, in a news release: “Today’s ruling is a major victory for life. The sovereign states will now have greater authority to implement strong pro-life protections.”

Explanation: No response.

Rep. Doug Lamborn (Colorado) — co-sponsored July 11

Dobbs comment, in a statement: “While today we are rejoicing, the fight now turns to the states where the American people must go on the offense for life.”

Explanation: No response.

Rep. Jake LaTurner (Kansas) — co-sponsored May 11

Dobbs comment, in a news release: “Overturning Roe ensures state and local officials closest to the people they represent, not unelected judges in Washington, construct our nation’s abortion laws.”

Explanation: No response.

Rep. Thomas Massie (Kentucky) — co-sponsored May 10

Dobbs comment, in a tweet: “The Supreme Court has taken two great steps to save lives in the past 48 hours: it reaffirmed Heller’s decision regarding self-defense rights and repealed Roe v. Wade to allow state legislatures to defend the unborn.”

Explanation: No response.

Rep. David B. McKinley (West Virginia) — co-sponsored May 10

Dobbs comment, in a news release: “This decision returns the power to the states to protect the unborn.”

Explanation: No response.

Rep. Barry Moore (Alabama) — co-sponsored May 10

Dobbs comment, in a news release: “The Dobbs decision affirming no constitutional right to abortion and leaving the matter to each state is the single greatest step to protecting life in generations and will save countless lives of unborn children.”

Explanation: No response.

Rep. Blake D. Moore (Utah)— co-sponsored May 10

Dobbs comment, in a news release: “The ruling gives back to states like Utah their constitutional authority to protect the lives of millions of children and support expecting mothers.”

Explanation: No response.

Rep. Markwayne Mullin (Oklahoma) — co-sponsored June 13

Dobbs comment, in a statement: “I am grateful for the system of checks and balances that allows for judicial review of prior decisions. And I am grateful as well for the affirmation of States’ rights, allowing states like Oklahoma to elevate life.”

Explanation: No response

Rep. Jason T. Smith (Missouri) — co-sponsored June 13

Dobbs comment, in a statement: “The Court’s decision makes clear that the Constitution gives state legislatures — not unelected judges — the freedom to answer the question of when life begins.”

Explanation: No response.

Rep. Bryan Steil (Wisconsin) — co-sponsored June 13

Dobbs comment, in a news release: “Today’s decision will bring this important issue back to the states. This is a great victory for life.”

Explanation: No response.

Lawmakers with comments open to interpretation

Rep. Jodey Arrington (Texas) — co-sponsored May 27

Dobbs comment, in a tweet: “By creating a national abortion policy in 1973, the Supreme Court acted as a legislative body, which severed the constitutional separation of powers and undermined the sovereignty of states and our citizens.”

Explanation: No response. Arrington’s reference to the Supreme Court acting as a “legislative body” could be interpreted as suggesting legislation at the federal level was acceptable.

Rep. Jim Baird (Indiana) — co-sponsored May 27

Dobbs comment, in a news release: “Today’s decision represents not only a great victory in the fight to preserve life at every stage and for states’ rights, but the opportunity to right a wrong. The right to life is the cornerstone of American principles and now states will have the ability to protect life at every stage, restoring some balance to our federalist system.”

Explanation: No response. Baird refers to a “federalist system” which does not rule out a role for Congress.

Rep. Tracey Mann (Kansas) — co-sponsored July 13

Dobbs comment, in a news release: “The U.S. Supreme Court does not have constitutional grounds to legalize abortion services nationwide, and the ruling in 1973 stripped away the states’ rights to decide …. Today’s decision gives the power back to the American people as designed in our Constitution.”

Explanation: No response. The reference to the “American people” could be code for federal action.

Rep. Greg Murphy (North Carolina) — co-sponsored May 27

Dobbs comment, in a news release: “Roe v. Wade was errantly constructed, both as an assault on the unalienable right to life, as well as a gross violation of the 14th Amendment — overriding states’ rights in the name of federal overreach. The Supreme Court’s ruling is constitutionally valid, as the decision on abortion will now rightfully be returned to the American people and their elected representatives.”

Explanation: No response. The reference to “the American people and their elected representatives” could suggest federal action is permissible.

Lawmakers with explanations

Rep. Dan Crenshaw (Texas) — co-sponsored May 11

Dobbs comment, in a tweet: “Roe v Wade was overturned. Historic. The issue goes back to the states, back to the people.”

Explanation: Justin Discigil, Crenshaw’s chief of staff, said the reference to “the people” also referred to possible federal action. “The point of the 17-word tweet you’re trying to parse here is that following the overturning of Roe this issue is returned to the people and their elected representatives, whether that be at the state or federal level,” he said in an email.

Rep. H. Morgan Griffith (Virginia) — co-sponsored June 13

Dobbs comment, in a news release: “The Court has returned to the individual states the ability to make their own decisions on this issue.”

Explanation: “It would have been my preference for abortion to be a state issue as indicated in the leaked Supreme Court opinion,” Griffith told the Fact Checker. “However, it is clear that Congress will take a role, as there have been numerous bills introduced. Since the Supreme Court Dobbs opinion, several bills have already come to the floor for a vote.”

Rep. Ronny Jackson (Texas) — co-sponsored May 10

Dobbs comment in a news release: “Today, we celebrate the sanctity of life and the return of a court that concerns itself with the Constitutionality of law, rather than writing it. Each state must now stand up for life and protect the most vulnerable among us.”

Explanation: A spokesman said his comments envisioned a federal role. “Congressman Jackson did not say that protecting innocent life was narrowly a state issue, he called on the states to enact pro-life legislation now that the heinous Roe v. Wade decision is no longer a roadblock. Congressman Jackson has and will continue to advocate for policies that protect the unborn at every level of government.”

Rep. Barry Loudermilk (Georgia) — co-sponsored May 27

Dobbs comment, in a Twitter thread: “This decision effectively returns the power to decide abortion policy back to where it was intended to reside, with the American people and their state governments.”

Explanation: “I signed onto the Heartbeat Protection Act in May, which was before the Supreme Court issued the Dobbs decision in June,” Loudermilk told the Fact Checker. “The Supreme Court decision in Dobbs vs. Jackson held that the Constitution of the United States does not confer a right to abortion, and returned the issue of abortion back to the state legislatures. I will continue to work on and support legislation that protects life, within the constitutional authority of Congress.”

Rep. Nancy Mace (South Carolina) — co-sponsored May 10

Dobbs comment, in a news release: “Today’s ruling returns power back to the states and power back to Congress on policies pertaining to life, where it rightfully belongs. This ruling protects federalism inherent in our Constitution and also returns this power back to the people and those they elected to represent them.”

Explanation: John Seibels, a spokesman for Mace, noted that her statement referenced “power back to Congress” and so there was no contradiction in supporting a federal law. He forwarded a recent opinion article by Mace, who has spoken publicly about being raped at 16, that decried efforts in her state to remove a rape exception from the state’s heartbeat law. “The first fact we need to get right is that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe did not outlaw abortion across the country, or in any part of it,” Mace wrote. “The Dobbs decision simply took the issue out of the federal courts and put it in the hands of state and federal legislators.”

Rep. Daniel Webster (Florida) — co-sponsored May 10

Dobbs comment, in a news release: “This ruling rightfully recognizes states’ rights and returns power to the American people and their state representatives.”

Explanation: He said he was noting the practical result of the Supreme Court on state policy, but not ruling out federal action. “I am pro-life and believe the right to life is the first God-given right and one of three unalienable rights promised to all individuals in the Declaration of Independence,” Webster told the Fact Checker. “For decades, I have fought to defend the rights of the unborn, to stand for life and to oppose attempts to remove pro-life protections for the unborn at both the state and federal levels.”

The Bottom Line

Crenshaw, Jackson, Mace and Webster say that their comments on Dobbs did not rule out federal action, though it appears only Mace was clear about that at the time. Griffith says that Democrats pressing the issue have unfortunately required a conservative response — though some might argue there is a difference between voting on legislation and co-sponsoring legislation. Loudermilk made the case he signed onto the bill before the Dobbs ruling was officially released.

To varying degree, these are valid explanations. We also noted that the comments from Arrington, Baird, Mann, and Murphy included phrases that might suggest they were not necessarily ruling out a federal role.

That still leaves 18 representatives who hailed the return of abortion policy to the states — while co-sponsoring a bill that would amount to a nationwide federal ban on abortion that would override state laws.

 

[libgirl2]

Not exactly abortion related but, another step backward. 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/texas-judge-rules-obamacare-hiv-171626169.html

[GreyhoundFan]

 

I know it's temporary, but every little bit helps.

[GreyhoundFan]

Fuck you Lindsey: "Graham to introduce bill that would restrict abortions nationwide"

Quote

Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) on Tuesday will make public his plans to introduce a bill in the Senate that would ban abortions nationwide, one that is expected to restrict the procedure after 15 weeks of pregnancy, according to several antiabortion advocates with knowledge of internal discussions.

Graham will be joined at a noon news conference Tuesday by Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, along with other antiabortion leaders. Representatives for Graham and the Susan B. Anthony group did not immediately respond to questions Tuesday morning.

The name of his bill — which includes the nonmedical phrase “late-term abortions” — drew sharp criticism from abortion rights activists. Used almost exclusively by antiabortion activists, the phrase is generally understood to refer to abortions between or after 21 and 24 weeks of pregnancy.

“15 weeks is not ‘late term,’ particularly given the significant challenges to access around the country,” Christina Reynolds, vice president of communications at Emily’s List, wrote in a tweet.

While most people undergo abortions earlier in pregnancy, 15-week and 20-week abortion bans disproportionately affect patients with fetal anomalies, which are often detected at a 20-week anatomy scan, along with those who take longer to realize they are pregnant. These kinds of bans will also affect more people in a post-Roe America as abortion clinics struggle to accommodate a swell of patients from states where abortion is now banned.

Democrats swiftly responded to reports of Graham’s efforts with anger, and vowed that the measure would go nowhere.

“I will block any efforts in the Senate to advance a nationwide abortion ban — full stop,” tweeted Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.), who is locked in a tough reelection bid. “We don’t need any more male politicians telling women what we can and can’t do with our own bodies.”

“I will never understand the Republican obsession with what goes on in your bedroom or your doctor’s office, but I do know it belongs nowhere near government. Your right to privacy is fundamental,” Rep. Gerald E. Connolly (D-Va.) tweeted.

The timing of Graham’s announcement is curious, two months after most Republicans justified the Supreme Court’s June decision to overturn Roe v. Wade by arguing that abortion rights should be left to states to decide. It will also come two months before the midterm elections, after abortion has already shown to be a galvanizing issue for some Democratic voters. While Republicans generally have praised the ruling overturning Roe, many have preferred not to focus on the issue ahead of the midterms.

Last month, Kansas voters soundly rejected a referendum that would have allowed state lawmakers to regulate abortion, the first time state voters decided on such an amendment since Roe was overturned. Last week, South Carolina Republicans fell short in their bid for a near-total abortion ban in the state. Planned Parenthood announced last month that it plans to spend a record $50 million in an effort to elect abortion rights supporters across the country this November, banking on the belief that abortion will help turn out Democratic voters.

Moreover, several red states already have stricter bans in place. “Trigger laws” restricting or banning abortion went into effect immediately after Roe was overturned in at least eight states, and several others are in various stages of legal limbo. Last month, Indiana passed a near-total abortion ban, the first to do so after Roe was struck down.

Before the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June, many Republican lawmakers and advocates had been pushing for a strict nationwide “heartbeat” ban on abortions, which would have outlawed the procedure after cardiac activity is detected, at around six weeks of pregnancy. Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) had been planning behind-the-scenes to introduce the legislation.

But months after the landmark abortion ruling, those plans have quietly fizzled. While that bill has been drafted, there is no timeline for Ernst or any other senator to introduce it, according to several antiabortion advocates close to the situation.

Instead, some leading antiabortion advocates are hoping that Republicans will rally around a 15-week ban, long denounced by many in the antiabortion movement because it would allow the vast majority of abortions to continue.

Dannenfelser, the president of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, said she expects that Graham’s bill will be “universally accepted,” offering a path forward that a variety of Republican senators can support.

“I think the place to begin is where Graham is beginning,” said Dannenfelser in an interview before Graham’s bill was released. “Graham is the momentum and it will increase when he introduces [his bill].”

Some Republicans are not so sure. Since the Supreme Court decision, many have said publicly that they think abortion should be left to the states.

Even before an antiabortion amendment was resoundingly defeated in his home state, Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.) told The Washington Post that he doubted that there was a future for any kind of national abortion ban.

“I just don’t see the momentum at the federal level,” Marshall said in a July 25 interview. “I think the legislative priority should be at the states.”

Republicans have been forced to reckon with a growing trove of data suggesting that abortion could be a decisive issue in the midterms, motivating Democratic and independent voters far more than was widely expected. Candidates who support abortion rights have overperformed in recent special elections, while key battleground states have seen a spike in Democratic and independent women registering to vote.

Some Republicans have grown increasingly hesitant to discuss the subject of a national abortion ban on the campaign trail. In Arizona, Republican Senate candidate Blake Masters removed any mention of his support for a “federal personhood law” from his website, legislation that probably would have banned abortion nationwide after conception. Masters’s website now says he would support a ban on abortions in the third trimester, at around 27 weeks of pregnancy, a far more popular position.

Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America applauded the change in a news release, saying that Masters “rightfully centered his position on what is achievable at the federal level.”

Abortion rights groups have seized on the looming threat of a national abortion ban, hoping to mobilize voters around the issue all over the country, including those in states where abortion rights are protected.

“For anyone who is in a state where abortion is not yet restricted or banned, we especially want to tell those voters, ‘This is everybody’s issue. It could come to your state too if they’re voting against efforts to protect abortion,' ” said Jacqueline Ayers, senior vice president at Planned Parenthood Action Fund.

In both the House and Senate, Republicans are debating other types of abortion legislation that might be easier to pass than a national ban.

Rep. Michelle Fischbach (R-Minn.), co-chair of the Congressional Pro-Life Caucus, said in an interview that members have been discussing first-of-its-kind legislation that would give federal funding to crisis pregnancy centers, antiabortion organizations that try to dissuade women from having abortions and sometimes offer diapers and other aid to new moms.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

 

[GreyhoundFan]

Talk about a contrast. The rethuglikan can't give a straight answer. The dem is loud and clear.

 

[Audrey2]

I'm done with these Republicans who arbitrarily decide to an abortion after say 15 or 16 weeks with no exceptions. I'm ready to take a page from the anti-abortion playbook. How many of us have seen their pictures a fetuses that they love to put on posters and parade around with words like choose life and put in our faces? As much as I shudder to even think this way I'm ready to make some video of some of these babies who are born with no ability to survive, like the one in Louisiana who is missing part of its cranium and have a video of the poor child's whole life while they're screaming in agony before they die. I'd like to show these videos to the people who think that all abortions after 15 weeks should be stopped before there can be the testing necessary to decide if fetuses are incapable of life or not.

[GreyhoundFan]

[GreyhoundFan]

This is a good thread:

More under spoiler:

Spoiler

 

[GreyhoundFan]

Lindsey shouldn't be a spokesperson for anything except idiotic sycophants.

 

[47of74]

Keith Olbermann took Graham to the woodshed over his antics on his podcast. 

[fraurosena]

1 hour ago, GreyhoundFan said:

This is a good thread:

More under spoiler:

  Hide contents

 

Good thread indeed, outlining the GOP strategy. But although it was not their intent to signal a total federal abortion ban, the public has perceived it as such. And the voting public will hold them to account for what they perceive, not for what the actual strategy is. The GOP is once again spectacularly miscalculating how they are perceived by the majority of voters. No matter how they will attempt to spin this, people will not hear it. The simple message people hear is: the GOP is pro forced pregnancy. The nuances of 8 weeks vs 15 weeks, late term or not, do not matter on this issue. The midterms will reveal just how badly the GOP have fucked themselves with this.

[GreyhoundFan]

I couldn't agree more:

[Jana814]

19 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

I couldn't agree more:

Same here!!  Love this!  

[AlmostSavedAtTacoBell]

That bozo actually kept saying "the world" agrees with them (meaning him and the grinning gaggle behind him- especially the one who kept her plastic smile on the whole time the audience member was detailing her tragic situation) as if he has his finger on the pulse of the rest of the world.  Much of the rest of the world completely disagrees with their position and are actually horrified by what is happening here.  After four years of Trump and the lingering stench of MAGA, we are lucky our allies haven't yeeted us out of their circles. 

 

[GreyhoundFan]

Excellent quote. Go Nancy!

 

[Audrey2]

1 hour ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Excellent quote. Go Nancy!

 

Don't all pregnancy start with a blooming onion? Or is that just for David and Priscilla Waller?

[GreyhoundFan]

This is a good video. CW: miscarriage.

 

[Howl]

Hopefully the VA and the military will continue a policy of birth control and abortion as healthcare.  

@MuellerSheWrote posted her own story of rape in the military in May of this year. 

Unroll here: CONTENT WARNING (Sexual assault)

 

 People must still report assault up the chain of command.  The military, particularly the Air Force, is riddled with fundamentalist Christians.  A woman wanting an abortion and needing leave to go to another state for the procedure must request leave from that same superior.  One can see how this process can become fraught very quickly. 

[GreyhoundFan]

This is disgusting:

 

[Audrey2]

5 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

This is disgusting:

 

And am I just being cynical to suspect that these death panels will base a good part of their decision on the woman's ethnicity and her family income and assets?

Really, these people have no bottom.

[47of74]

People are having to consider abortion restrictions when picking a school 

Quote

“Last year, people weren’t going in and saying, ‘If I need an abortion, what would be my plan?’ It wasn’t part of the planning process,” says Bari Norman, head counselor at Expert Admissions, a concierge service that helps prospective college students identify their best university fit. Now, she adds, students are “going to have some conversations that certainly didn’t happen previously.”

 

[libgirl2]

On 9/14/2022 at 1:31 PM, AlmostSavedAtTacoBell said:

That bozo actually kept saying "the world" agrees with them (meaning him and the grinning gaggle behind him- especially the one who kept her plastic smile on the whole time the audience member was detailing her tragic situation) as if he has his finger on the pulse of the rest of the world.  Much of the rest of the world completely disagrees with their position and are actually horrified by what is happening here.  After four years of Trump and the lingering stench of MAGA, we are lucky our allies haven't yeeted us out of their circles. 

 

He has his finger on something and it isn't a pulse. 

6 hours ago, 47of74 said:

People are having to consider abortion restrictions when picking a school 

 

I heard about that. What are we coming to as a country. I heard on the news about the suspicious death of the young woman in Iran who was taken into custody for not wearing her hijab properly. All I can think of is will that be us next?