Category: reproductive rights

Heather Hastie on abortion

July 19, 2019 • 9:30 am

Today Heather Hastie has a long and informative post on her website Heather’s Homilies. Click on the screenshot to read it:

If you want to get up to speed on the abortion debates (and antiabortion laws) currently roiling the U.S., you’ll find everything you need to know on this post. Heather concentrates on how Trump and the Republican party are dismantling women’s access to abortion, a trend that both she and I strongly decry.

I’ll give just one excerpt. Really, this post is must reading for all Americans and those who don’t know how a Constitutional right is being insidiously eroded in the U.S.:

The Myth of “Pro-Life”

Those who oppose abortion say they are doing so to save the lives of all the babies who would have been born if there was no abortion. This is absolute codswallop. The stupidity of it perhaps makes me even angrier than the attack on women’s rights, That’s because of what the truth really is.

Making abortion illegal does NOT mean no more abortions. What it means is:

1.Women being forced by desperation into breaking the law.

2. Women DYING from what is a simple medical procedure when carried out by a properly trained medical professional.

3. More women, especially poor women, suffering long-term medical complications.

4. More women being trapped in poverty.

5. More children suffering because their parent/parents have more children than they can look after financially, physically, emotionally, or mentally.

6. People, especially women, being trapped in unfulfilling (or even abusive) relationships because couples stay together, “for the sake of the child/ren.”

7. Places like Planned Parenthood forced to close. That means a lack of information about, and access to, contraception as well as other healthcare needs. It also means women who don’t have an abortion, which is most of their clients, lose access to healthcare.

Making Abortion Illegal Increases the Number of Abortions

But most of all, the evidence is that making abortion illegal does NOT reduce the number of abortions. The US’s Guttmacher Institute produced a comprehensive study: Abortion Worldwide 2017 (pdf here). It states:

Abortions occur as frequently in the two most-restrictive categories of countries (banned outright or allowed only to save the woman’s life) as in the least-restrictive category (allowed without restriction as to reason)—37 and 34 per 1,000 women, respectively.

Yes, you read that correctly. There are more abortions where it is illegal or heavily restricted than where it’s freely available.

And a tee-shirt she shows:

Alabama’s abortion bill is now law

May 15, 2019 • 6:16 pm

According to CNN, Alabama’s governor Kay Ivey just signed the state’s restrictive abortion bill, passed solely by Republican men, into law. We already know it’s in opposition to Roe v Wade, and that it allows NO exceptions for pregnancies due to rape or incest. No matter what you think about abortion, it’s reprehensible to force women who were victims of rape and incest to have their baby. Even Pat Robertson, as I saw on the evening news, is opposed to this law.

It’s a long road from the Alabama legislature to the Supreme Court, and nobody, I hope, will be prosecuted for performing abortions in the state until there’s a ruling. I’m hoping desperately that the Supreme Court thinks hard about how it rules here, and what it will mean for the country, but it’s all a mystery at this point.

In the meantime, I despise those in Alabama who have made abortion a felony, punishable by up to 99 years in prison.

Alabama’s odious abortion bill

May 15, 2019 • 8:20 am

Most Americans have already heard this, so I’m just giving the news to those who haven’t, complaining about what happened, and offering you a chance to comment.

What happened, as the New York Times reports (click on screenshot below), is that the Alabama legislature passed a law that effectively ends all abortions in that state save in pregnancies that endanger the life of the mother. Pregnancies resulting from rape and incest must still be carried to term—a horrible stipulation.

From the paper:

The Alabama Senate approved a measure on Tuesday that would outlaw almost all abortions in the state, setting up a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade, the case that recognized a woman’s constitutional right to end a pregnancy.

The legislation bans abortions at every stage of pregnancy and criminalizes the procedure for doctors, who could be charged with felonies and face up to 99 years in prison. It includes an exception for cases when the mother’s life is at serious risk, but not for cases of rape or incest — a subject of fierce debate among lawmakers in recent days.

The House approved the measure — the most far-reaching effort in the nation this year to curb abortion rights — last month. It now moves to the desk of Gov. Kay Ivey, a Republican. Although the governor has not publicly committed to signing the legislation, many Republican lawmakers expect her support.

This is part of a wider national movement energized by the election of Trump, which empowered conservatives and right-wing Christians:

Other state measures to restrict abortion rights have advanced in the South and the Midwest this year and invited legal fights. Already, the governors of Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi and Ohio have signed fetal heartbeat bills. [JAC: those are bills prohibiting abortion after the time when a fetal heartbeat appears.] And Arkansas moved up the cutoff point for legal abortions to 18 weeks of pregnancy, from 20 weeks.

CNN adds information about the vote, which was lopsided, even on the rape/incest stipulation:

After more than four hours of debate, the Republican-led Senate voted 25-6 to pass HB 314, which would slap doctors with up to 99 years in prison for performing an abortion. The Alabama House passed the bill earlier this month.
The law only allows exceptions “to avoid a serious health risk to the unborn child’s mother,” for ectopic pregnancy and if the “unborn child has a lethal anomaly.” Democrats re-introduced an amendment to exempt rape and incest victims, but the motion failed on an 11-21 vote.
Even for a conservative Republican state in the South, this is a reprehensible move. It is, of course, designed to be challenged, and it will be a brave Alabama doctor who will challenge it by performing an abortion in that state, risking life in prison if the Supreme Court upholds the law. For—make no mistake about it—this state law will go to the Supreme Court, who may affirm it, overturning Roe v. Wade. Then states will be free to make their own laws, and you know what that will do, especially in the South. Although that Court doesn’t like to reverse its previous decisions, this is one case where it may, for the Court is packed with conservative justices.
My own view, which I’ve expressed before, is that any woman who wants an abortion, right up to birth, should be permitted to have one, though that goes beyond the ruling of Roe v. Wade and its subsequent interpretation by courts. But in supporting Roe v. Wade, I’m on board with the majority of the American public, 73% of whom say that they don’t want that decision overturned. 

Grania points out that the decision, at least in Alabama, doesn’t seem to be so much a men vs. women issue (as is often claimed) rather than one of conservatives versus liberals:

And Matthew adds that the Alabama law is basically the same as the one holding sway in Northern Ireland, where abortions for rape and incest are also illegal, as well as every other abortion save those in which the pregnancy endangers the mother’s life.

https://twitter.com/helenlewis/status/1128572546528546818

I’ve always thought that yes, Trump will go away (perhaps next year), but his influence on the Supreme Court (and that of the Republican Senate) will remain for decades, with a conservative court that will interpret the law for ages to come. Let us hope that stare decisis will hold this time.

Texas, trying desperately to restrict abortions, requires fetuses, no matter how advanced, be treated differently from other medical waste, and given a proper burial

December 3, 2016 • 10:30 am

Last June the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Texas laws that would have placed severe restrictions on abortion clinics in that state—laws that were intended to limit access to abortions by severely reducing the number of qualified clinics. (The law made clinics conform to standards of “ambulatory surgical centers”.) In response, the woman-controlling Texas legislature has now done an end run around the decision. At the end of last month, they approved a new regulation that fetuses, unlike other forms of medical waste, must be buried or incinerated like a human body, regardless of the stage of abortion. As the New York Times reported:

According to the rules, aborted fetal tissue must be handled like a deceased person and treated “using the process of cremation, entombment, burial, or placement in a niche or by using the process of cremation followed by placement of the ashes in a niche, grave, or scattering of ashes as authorized by law.”

Here are the new regulations, showing the unwarranted distinction between fetuses and other forms of medical waste, including body organs:


 screen-shot-2016-12-03-at-10-07-21-am

screen-shot-2016-12-03-at-10-06-02-am

screen-shot-2016-12-03-at-10-06-30-am

And fetuses? See below, and here it is in larger type:

 (B)The products of spontaneous or induced human abortion shall be subjected to one of the following methods of treatment and disposal:

(i)fetal tissue, regardless of the period of gestation, except as provided by §1.133 of this title (relating to Scope, Covering Exemptions and Minimum Parametric Standards for Waste Treatment Technologies Previously Approved by the Texas Department of State Health Services):
(I)incineration followed by interment;
(II)steam disinfection followed by interment; or
(III)interment;

screen-shot-2016-12-03-at-10-06-50-am

In other words, fetuses, even if very early in development, must be buried as if they were humans.  This can only reflect the view that a fetus, no matter how far along, is equivalent to an already-born human.  That, of course, is a religious view, but it also makes more trouble for abortion clinics, which must now cover the extra expense of burial or cremation/burial. Will the patient be required to pay more to cover these costs?

Further, it’s palpably clear that this rule is meant to shame women who have had abortions, forcing them to treat their fetuses as if they were their already-born children. That is clearly a psychological burden: “My fetus is going to be buried like a person.”

There is no medical or biological justification for treating aborted fetuses differently from animal carcasses (after all, we are animals) or from organs removed from people. The only justification is a religious one, and Texas just can’t stop trying to put obstacles in the way of women seeking abortions.

Donald Trump has already sworn to ensure that the Supreme Court will overturn Roe v. Wade, placing abortion laws back in the hands of the states—and you know what that means.  The only consolation is that the Supreme Court voted 5-3 to overturn the Texas law in the first place, and a new Trump appointee won’t change that balance. But several of the Justices are old, and it’s likely that Trump will get another appointment even if he has only one term.

A late addition: reader Pliny The in Between has a cartoon editorial comment on the new Texas law at his/her site:

toon-background-001

 

Ben Carson says abortion is like slavery, advocates automatic weapons, suppression of free speech at colleges, etc., etc. etc.

October 25, 2015 • 12:00 pm

Ben Carson is simply a horrible man, but his odious views are belied by his calm—almost tranquilized—demeanor. The video below shows this morning’s interview of Ben Carson by Chuck Todd on “Meet the Press”.

Even though most readers here probably despise the man, you owe it to yourself to listen to the nineteen minutes of religiously-inspired hate from someone who might be next year’s Republican candidate for President. Carson’s numbers are rising above Trump’s in the polls, and Jeb Bush is in trouble. God help us all: the Republicans may go for Carson in 2016. And if they do, he’ll lose—but he’ll still get rich and renowned. Remember Sarah Palin, an equally moronic candidate? It’s a huge embarrassment to America that this man, as was Palin, is taken seriously as a politican, and as a potential leader of this nation.

At 2:30, Carson defends his frequent use of Nazi/Holocaust tropes for Obama’s policies, and says that he’s heard approval from Jewish people for such statements (who are they?). He adds that had Jews been armed in the 1940s, the Holocaust would have been averted.

At about 5:30, he argues that there should be few limitations on American’s “Second Amendment right” to have whatever weapons they need to protect themselves, and that we should be able to have automatic weapons.

And, about 6 minutes in, he begins talking about abortion, saying things like this (transcripts via PuffHo):

“During slavery — and I know that’s one of those words you’re not supposed to say, but I’m saying it — during slavery, a lot of the slave owners thought that they had the right to do whatever they wanted to that slave. Anything that they chose to do. And, you know, what if the abolitionist had said, you know, ‘I don’t believe in slavery. I think it’s wrong. But you guys do whatever you want to do’?  Where would we be?”

What the bloody hell is he talking about here? The argument for slavery is by no means comparable to the argument for abortion, and Carson’s simply using one hot-button issue to arouse emotion about another. Is he really making an analogy between a slaveholder having a slave and a woman having a fetus in her womb? If so, that’s even dumber.

Carson goes on—read the following carefully:

CHUCK TODD: Okay.  Do you want to see Roe v. Wade overturned?

DR. BEN CARSON: Ultimately, I would love to see it overturned.

CHUCK TODD: And that means all abortions illegal?  Or is there still an exception that you would have?

DR. BEN CARSON: I’m a reasonable person. And if people can come up with a reasonable explanation of why they would like to kill a baby, I’ll listen.

CHUCK TODD: Life and health of the mother?

DR. BEN CARSON: Again, that’s a extraordinarily rare situation. But if in that very rare situation it occurred, I believe there’s room to discuss that.

CHUCK TODD: Rape and incest?

DR. BEN CARSON: Rape and incest, I would not be in favor of killing a baby because the baby came about in that way. And all you have to do is go and look up the many stories of people who have led very useful lives who were the result of rape or incest.

Seriously, a “reasonable person” would make no exceptions to forcing a woman to have a child conceived by rape or incest? That, of course, comes from his religion—his view that life begins at conception and that a dependent fetus is equivalent to a free-living adult. This man (a creationist Jehovah’s Witness) is a theocrat.

Finally, at 14:10 Caron discusses his views on how the government should monitor colleges for incorrect speech, which he calls “propaganda” and “indoctrination”. Todd properly calls him out by saying that Carson’s “propaganda” is someone else’s free speech. Carson’s response is lame.

Can there be anybody more wrong on all the issues? I count 100% divergence between his views and mine.

Interview with a “fetal attorney” in Alabama

January 22, 2015 • 12:04 pm

Alabama has passed a bill, HB494, that allows fetuses to be represented by lawyers. It is, of course, a law designed to prevent abortions by having lawyers argue on behalf of a fetus that it should be born. You’ll find the relevant part on pp. 15-16 of the bill:

(j) In the court’s discretion, it may appoint a guardian ad litem for the interests of the unborn child of the petitioner who shall also have the same rights and obligation of participation in the proceeding as given to the district attorney’s office. The guardian ad litem shall further have the responsibility of assisting and advising the court so the court may make an informed decision and do substantial justice. The guardian ad litem shall be compensated as provided in Section 15-12-21.

In the video below, described by TPM, Daily Show correspondent Jessica Williams, a woman who is absolutely fearless, talks to “fetal attorney” Julian McPhillips (a civil rights lawyer gone off the rails) about the bill. The results are both enlightening and hilarious; although McPhillips accuses his interrogator of playing the “theater of the absurd”, the real theater of the absurd is the Alabama legislature.

NOTE: The YouTube video has been removed (damn you, Jon Stewart!), so click on the screenshot below to go to the Daily Show’s video of the interview:

Screen Shot 2015-01-22 at 12.09.32 PM

By the way, HB494 also contains this disingenuous statement on p. 4:

It is not the intent of the Legislature to place an undue burden on the minor’s otherwise legal right to make a decision on whether to obtain an abortion of her unborn child; the Legislature’s intent is to provide guidance and assistance to minors who find themselves in the unfortunate position of having to make such decisions and to courts who must act in the place of parents in providing an alternative by-pass mode for decision making.

That’s pure bullshit.

h/t: Ginger K