Abortion bans without a rape exception clearly violate the thirteenth amendment’s prohibition against forced labor. So do all abortion bans in my opinion, but it’s crystal clear when it’s pregnancy from rape. The woman did not consent to sex and therefore conservatives can’t make the (bullshit) argument that consenting to sex is consenting to pregnancy. Supreme Court case law is clear forced labor for the “benefit of another” violates the thirteenth amendment prohibition against involuntary servitude (it prohibits both slavery and involuntary servitude). The state is forcing women to engage in reproductive labor, against their will and without their consent, for the benefit of another (fetus and state).
If a woman was kidnapped off the street during her morning jog and forced to work some man’s field for nine months with the states blessing, that obviously violates the thirteenth amendment. Yet Republicans will tell you it doesn’t violate the thirteenth amendment for a woman to be kidnapped, raped and forced to carry a pregnancy for nine months and endure delivery against her will. Or a thirteen year old raped by her stepfather. Or the young coed raped waking home from a late night class. The list goes on.
The argument “but rape doesn’t justify killing an innocent” is vapor. You cannot justify one persons involuntary servitude on the reasoning that it will save someone else. It’s a flat constitutional prohibition: “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude…shall exist within the United States.”
Hi Jessica - I work as an RN at PP of the Rocky Mountains. We offer care over 20 weeks without deep sedation here - PPNY should reach out to our Chief Medical Officer!
The Center for Reproductive Rights has issued an update on its interactive map of abortion restrictions: https://reproductiverights.org/maps/abortion-laws-by-state/, analyzing states in five categories: Expanded Access, Protected, Not Protected, Hostile, and Illegal.
Is Planned Parenthood truly in that bad of a financial situation? I was stunned when I heard that news. We need blue states offering abortions at that critical time - not only for our own citizens, but also for the red state women who face delays in care and need later abortions.
The authors say that polls show approximately 80% of poll respondents support legal abortions in case of rape or incest. However, 10 of the 21 ban states do NOT provide an exception for pregnancies resulting from rape. And in the other 11 states, many factors, such as the lack of available providers, short time frames, and reporting requirements make abortion inaccessible even if technically legal.
There are 14 states that have a complete abortion ban, and nine states do not make an exception for rape or incest (Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas). Five states theoretically allow abortion in cases of rape or incest (Idaho, Indiana, Mississippi, North Dakota, West Virginia)--but only early in pregnancy. Furthermore, in seven states that theoretically allow abortion but only between six and fifteen weeks gestation, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Nebraska, North Carolina, South Carolina), there is a rape/incest exception, but Arizona does not have a rape/incest exception.
Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Mississippi, and West Virginia require a report to law enforcement before abortion in rape/incest cases. The authors say that only about 1/5 of sexual assaults are ever reported. Even if rape or incest is reported, law enforcement may refuse to release police reports during the investigation, thus making it even harder to obtain abortion care if the law requires the victim to give the police report to the abortion provider.
Of course, in states with total bans or severe restrictions, there are very few abortion providers. The remaining providers may be hesitant to perform an abortion in a rape/incest case because they are afraid of being prosecuted. Idaho, Mississippi, and North Dakota residents have been counseled to leave the state because it is too difficult to get an abortion under the state rape/incest exception.
The article includes a horrifying timeline for West Virginia. West Virginia permits abortions in case of rape/incest but only up to eight weeks after the last menstrual period. Most pregnancies are discovered at about 5.5 weeks after the last menstrual period, so a rape or incest victim in West Virginia would have two and a half weeks to find a doctor who will make an appointment, report the crime to law enforcement and get a police report, which must be given to the doctor at least 48 hours before the abortion, and raise the money to pay for the abortion. Even before Dobbs, West Virginia had significant abortion limitations, including mandatory counseling, a 24-hour waiting period, and either parental consent for minors or "judicial bypass" (a court order permitting the abortion).
There's not much data on how many abortions are actually performed under rape/incest exceptions, but there are very few--e.g., in Indiana, which imposed a total ban in August 2023, FIVE abortions were performed under the rape/incest exception.
The whole "rape and incest exceptions" political front is really a straw dog to confuse people about the restrictions that make the exceptions sound sensible. Don't take the bait. Nobody should be concerned about why a woman wants an abortion. The issue of whether rape or incest was involved should never, ever come up.
Thank you for this, and especially for the heads up about religious anti abortion people attempting to pressure Costco. They have people ready to cancel their memberships unless Costco stops selling abortion drugs, eh? I doubt that. But I will definitely cancel mine if Costco gives in to that bs.
The revenue Costco and Wal Mart would make from the abortion pill should far outweigh the costs of a religious boycott. The demand for abortion medication is only going to rise and we need to have a thriving market for it (and one that encourages further innovation - how is it we only have one pill after 20+ years? Politics). Investors should be telling both companies to provide this much needed and valued service, in the best interest of company’s bottom line and the country.
I’m going to have a bumper sticker made up that says, “Mind your own damn business.” And one that says, “Say it to my face.” And one that says “It’s a MEDICAL decision.”
I don't think it's a medical decision, I think it's a personal decision. Someone who doesn't want to continue a pregnancy because of health risks should have abortion access. So should someone who doesn't want to or can't care for a child at this time. Republicans are trying to create a class of "good" people who want abortions and therefore aren't getting abortions, they're getting "family separation" or "miscarriage care" and another class of "bad" people who want abortions and should be denied them.
I think an elective abortion is still a medical decision. My body has begun a biological process that I don’t want to continue and I turn to medical science to stop that process. The fact that it’s elective or that I have no reason to believe I’d suffer long lasting physical harm doesn’t make it not a medical issue in my opinion. It’s an issue of the body. Hence medical.
But your doctor doesn't know if your partner is abusive or you're afraid you'll lose your job or that you're close to being evicted or that even though your husband isn't abusive you don't want to raise a child (or another child) with him and you want a divorce or whether you're having a hard time paying for this appointment with the doctor, much less paying for an abortion, much less raising a child.
Right but I don’t see how that makes it not a medical decision? If a doctor knows all that they might provide more compassionate care (though they should provide compassionate without being told why I want an abortion), but whether or not they know it doesn’t impact the medical nature. Maybe you mean something else by medical decision than me. By calling it a medical decision I don’t mean it’s the doctor’s decision to make whether I have an abortion or not, just that it’s a decision that is medical - it’s a biological process that requires medical intervention (pill or surgical). It’s healthcare. Thus when I decide to have an abortion, for any reason whatsoever, I make a medical decision.
But I do agree that it’s not a doctor’s decision and I rankle at the “between a woman and her doctor” language bc in my view it’s solely the woman’s decision. Doctors play a vital role ofc but in the end it’s the woman who should decide.
Right. And to point, nobody should even suggest to a woman they might have some sort of interest at all as to why she wants an abortion. In practice, the question "Why?" should not come up.
I loved that when Gov. Walz said, "Mind your own damn business" ! It can apply to many things Republicans do. Don't like abortion? Don't get one. Don't like marijuana? Don't consume it. LEAVE PEOPLE THE HELL ALONE.
Thought Tim Walz’s comment, as he described he and his wife’s experience with infertility and IVF, ended with chastising Republicans with, “Mind your own damned business”. Isn’t that a perfect rejoinder to the increasingly harrowing attempts to invade women’s privacy with tracking periods, pregnancy medical records, etc.
One story is about a woman who might *not* have gotten an abortion if she’d had a little more time to do genetic testing. These bans have nothing at all to do with protecting families.
I have wondered about that when thinking about the rise in abortion numbers. Do early bans cause women to panic and have abortions who, given more time to consider options and resources, might have decided differently. How many women with high risk pregnancies or concerns about genetic issues might have taken a more wait-and-see approach if they had the option of abortion later in the pregnancy. Just another way bans are anti-life.
Yes, definitely, I’ve heard these stories at other hearings too. Sometimes people are surprised but not necessarily unhappy about the pregnancy, and just need some time to figure out if they can line up family support, money, etc. But the 6-week ban makes them feel trapped and frightened so they make a rushed decision.
I would never consider voting for Harris unless, and until, she promised (believably) to immediately, upon election, reintroduce, get passed by Congress and ratified by 2/3 of the States, the Equal Rights Amendment, along with a new Amendment forbidding any governmental agency, federal, state or local, from interfering in the sexual or reproductive decisions of citizens, including, but not limited to, birth control, abortion and sex change. Harris is as left wing a politician as was Obama, who recently publicly compared his political positions with Eisenhower Republicans. Until she actually runs on issues other than "I ain't Trump," I'll keep thinking of her as, in her own words, "Don't Come. Don't Come," and vote for Jill Stein. Dr. Stein might not win, but she has moral and political integrity far in excess of the candidates from either major party.
Yes, Someone skipped civics class on separation of powers. And Russian plant Jill Stein! I still have that photo of she an Flynn with Putin at the RT function.
I'm pretty sure even the folks who run the ERA Coalition would not advise that you do this. If you care about the ERA, you need to focus on Democrats retaining control of Congress AND having the majorities at the state level for ratification. The President can't do anything about either of those things.
You’re throwing your vote away. I’m sorry that we live in a country with a two-party system, but that’s the reality. Your vote should be used to choose the best option from the two main parties. It’s as simple as that. You might as well be voting for trump by voting third party, which means you’re throwing yourself under the bus.
Presidents do not introduce legislation. That is the role of Congress - the Legislative branch of the government. The President is head of the Executive Branch. Presidents sign bills (legislation) into law once the bill has passed both the House and Senate. Voting for Jill Stein is voting for Trump. And even Jill Stein cannot get the Equal Rights Amendment introduced into Congress. Nor can she get it passed by a 2/3 majority. I recommend reading the Constitution.
Though it has become more and more common in the Age of the Internet, I do not appreciate having someone talk down to me, especially when she doesn't bother to first engage in polite discussion. You did not create the two party system "that we have now," but your subservience to it, perpetuates it. In any case, as you have made so many other (11!) readers "like" your having set me straight, you must be right. Supporting the Democrat party has certainly lead to financial and political equality, as well as peace around the world. Goodbye; I won't bother you, again.
Seriously, I have no idea why you are so angry with me. I don’t like the two party system either, but I am voting for someone who can actually get elected because the lives of my nieces and great nieces are at stake without reproductive freedom. My LGBTQAI friends will lose their civil rights if Felon 34 is elected. Project 2025 is real. Building a viable third party is a grand goal, but it’s not going to happen in the next 90 days.
Abortion bans without a rape exception clearly violate the thirteenth amendment’s prohibition against forced labor. So do all abortion bans in my opinion, but it’s crystal clear when it’s pregnancy from rape. The woman did not consent to sex and therefore conservatives can’t make the (bullshit) argument that consenting to sex is consenting to pregnancy. Supreme Court case law is clear forced labor for the “benefit of another” violates the thirteenth amendment prohibition against involuntary servitude (it prohibits both slavery and involuntary servitude). The state is forcing women to engage in reproductive labor, against their will and without their consent, for the benefit of another (fetus and state).
If a woman was kidnapped off the street during her morning jog and forced to work some man’s field for nine months with the states blessing, that obviously violates the thirteenth amendment. Yet Republicans will tell you it doesn’t violate the thirteenth amendment for a woman to be kidnapped, raped and forced to carry a pregnancy for nine months and endure delivery against her will. Or a thirteen year old raped by her stepfather. Or the young coed raped waking home from a late night class. The list goes on.
The argument “but rape doesn’t justify killing an innocent” is vapor. You cannot justify one persons involuntary servitude on the reasoning that it will save someone else. It’s a flat constitutional prohibition: “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude…shall exist within the United States.”
Hi Jessica - I work as an RN at PP of the Rocky Mountains. We offer care over 20 weeks without deep sedation here - PPNY should reach out to our Chief Medical Officer!
The Center for Reproductive Rights has issued an update on its interactive map of abortion restrictions: https://reproductiverights.org/maps/abortion-laws-by-state/, analyzing states in five categories: Expanded Access, Protected, Not Protected, Hostile, and Illegal.
Is Planned Parenthood truly in that bad of a financial situation? I was stunned when I heard that news. We need blue states offering abortions at that critical time - not only for our own citizens, but also for the red state women who face delays in care and need later abortions.
Could you send the locales of the four clinics PPGNY is planning to close? Thank you for your essential work.
Also from KFF, Mabel Felix and Alina Salganicoff, "A Closer Look at Rape and Incest Exceptions in States With Abortion Bans and Early Gestational Restrictions," (Aug. 7, 2024), https://kff.org/policy-watch/rape-incest-exceptios-abortion-bans-restrictions/?
The authors say that polls show approximately 80% of poll respondents support legal abortions in case of rape or incest. However, 10 of the 21 ban states do NOT provide an exception for pregnancies resulting from rape. And in the other 11 states, many factors, such as the lack of available providers, short time frames, and reporting requirements make abortion inaccessible even if technically legal.
There are 14 states that have a complete abortion ban, and nine states do not make an exception for rape or incest (Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas). Five states theoretically allow abortion in cases of rape or incest (Idaho, Indiana, Mississippi, North Dakota, West Virginia)--but only early in pregnancy. Furthermore, in seven states that theoretically allow abortion but only between six and fifteen weeks gestation, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Nebraska, North Carolina, South Carolina), there is a rape/incest exception, but Arizona does not have a rape/incest exception.
Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Mississippi, and West Virginia require a report to law enforcement before abortion in rape/incest cases. The authors say that only about 1/5 of sexual assaults are ever reported. Even if rape or incest is reported, law enforcement may refuse to release police reports during the investigation, thus making it even harder to obtain abortion care if the law requires the victim to give the police report to the abortion provider.
Of course, in states with total bans or severe restrictions, there are very few abortion providers. The remaining providers may be hesitant to perform an abortion in a rape/incest case because they are afraid of being prosecuted. Idaho, Mississippi, and North Dakota residents have been counseled to leave the state because it is too difficult to get an abortion under the state rape/incest exception.
The article includes a horrifying timeline for West Virginia. West Virginia permits abortions in case of rape/incest but only up to eight weeks after the last menstrual period. Most pregnancies are discovered at about 5.5 weeks after the last menstrual period, so a rape or incest victim in West Virginia would have two and a half weeks to find a doctor who will make an appointment, report the crime to law enforcement and get a police report, which must be given to the doctor at least 48 hours before the abortion, and raise the money to pay for the abortion. Even before Dobbs, West Virginia had significant abortion limitations, including mandatory counseling, a 24-hour waiting period, and either parental consent for minors or "judicial bypass" (a court order permitting the abortion).
There's not much data on how many abortions are actually performed under rape/incest exceptions, but there are very few--e.g., in Indiana, which imposed a total ban in August 2023, FIVE abortions were performed under the rape/incest exception.
The whole "rape and incest exceptions" political front is really a straw dog to confuse people about the restrictions that make the exceptions sound sensible. Don't take the bait. Nobody should be concerned about why a woman wants an abortion. The issue of whether rape or incest was involved should never, ever come up.
See where Tim Walz stands on abortion rights, IVF and other major issues with this interactive infographic. "12 things to know about Tim Walz"
https://infogram.com/10-things-to-know-about-tim-walz-1h984wvje0vyd2p
Thank you for this, and especially for the heads up about religious anti abortion people attempting to pressure Costco. They have people ready to cancel their memberships unless Costco stops selling abortion drugs, eh? I doubt that. But I will definitely cancel mine if Costco gives in to that bs.
#NotGoingBack
The revenue Costco and Wal Mart would make from the abortion pill should far outweigh the costs of a religious boycott. The demand for abortion medication is only going to rise and we need to have a thriving market for it (and one that encourages further innovation - how is it we only have one pill after 20+ years? Politics). Investors should be telling both companies to provide this much needed and valued service, in the best interest of company’s bottom line and the country.
Thank you Jessica for your endless work. I so appreciate your advocacy. I’m glad to be part of this substack 👏
I’m going to have a bumper sticker made up that says, “Mind your own damn business.” And one that says, “Say it to my face.” And one that says “It’s a MEDICAL decision.”
I don't think it's a medical decision, I think it's a personal decision. Someone who doesn't want to continue a pregnancy because of health risks should have abortion access. So should someone who doesn't want to or can't care for a child at this time. Republicans are trying to create a class of "good" people who want abortions and therefore aren't getting abortions, they're getting "family separation" or "miscarriage care" and another class of "bad" people who want abortions and should be denied them.
I think an elective abortion is still a medical decision. My body has begun a biological process that I don’t want to continue and I turn to medical science to stop that process. The fact that it’s elective or that I have no reason to believe I’d suffer long lasting physical harm doesn’t make it not a medical issue in my opinion. It’s an issue of the body. Hence medical.
But your doctor doesn't know if your partner is abusive or you're afraid you'll lose your job or that you're close to being evicted or that even though your husband isn't abusive you don't want to raise a child (or another child) with him and you want a divorce or whether you're having a hard time paying for this appointment with the doctor, much less paying for an abortion, much less raising a child.
Right but I don’t see how that makes it not a medical decision? If a doctor knows all that they might provide more compassionate care (though they should provide compassionate without being told why I want an abortion), but whether or not they know it doesn’t impact the medical nature. Maybe you mean something else by medical decision than me. By calling it a medical decision I don’t mean it’s the doctor’s decision to make whether I have an abortion or not, just that it’s a decision that is medical - it’s a biological process that requires medical intervention (pill or surgical). It’s healthcare. Thus when I decide to have an abortion, for any reason whatsoever, I make a medical decision.
But I do agree that it’s not a doctor’s decision and I rankle at the “between a woman and her doctor” language bc in my view it’s solely the woman’s decision. Doctors play a vital role ofc but in the end it’s the woman who should decide.
I think we're agreeing on substance, just defining "medical decision" differently.
Right. And to point, nobody should even suggest to a woman they might have some sort of interest at all as to why she wants an abortion. In practice, the question "Why?" should not come up.
I loved that when Gov. Walz said, "Mind your own damn business" ! It can apply to many things Republicans do. Don't like abortion? Don't get one. Don't like marijuana? Don't consume it. LEAVE PEOPLE THE HELL ALONE.
Don’t like books, don’t read them! It just goes on and on!
Thought Tim Walz’s comment, as he described he and his wife’s experience with infertility and IVF, ended with chastising Republicans with, “Mind your own damned business”. Isn’t that a perfect rejoinder to the increasingly harrowing attempts to invade women’s privacy with tracking periods, pregnancy medical records, etc.
Thanks for amplifying Sen. Ossoff’s work in Georgia. He hosted a field hearing a couple weeks ago on Health Impacts of Georgia’s Abortion Ban; go to 25:00 of the video and listen to some of these doctors’ harrowing stories: https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/committee-activity/hearings/health-impacts-of-abortion-ban-on-georgia-women
One story is about a woman who might *not* have gotten an abortion if she’d had a little more time to do genetic testing. These bans have nothing at all to do with protecting families.
I have wondered about that when thinking about the rise in abortion numbers. Do early bans cause women to panic and have abortions who, given more time to consider options and resources, might have decided differently. How many women with high risk pregnancies or concerns about genetic issues might have taken a more wait-and-see approach if they had the option of abortion later in the pregnancy. Just another way bans are anti-life.
Yes, definitely, I’ve heard these stories at other hearings too. Sometimes people are surprised but not necessarily unhappy about the pregnancy, and just need some time to figure out if they can line up family support, money, etc. But the 6-week ban makes them feel trapped and frightened so they make a rushed decision.
I would never consider voting for Harris unless, and until, she promised (believably) to immediately, upon election, reintroduce, get passed by Congress and ratified by 2/3 of the States, the Equal Rights Amendment, along with a new Amendment forbidding any governmental agency, federal, state or local, from interfering in the sexual or reproductive decisions of citizens, including, but not limited to, birth control, abortion and sex change. Harris is as left wing a politician as was Obama, who recently publicly compared his political positions with Eisenhower Republicans. Until she actually runs on issues other than "I ain't Trump," I'll keep thinking of her as, in her own words, "Don't Come. Don't Come," and vote for Jill Stein. Dr. Stein might not win, but she has moral and political integrity far in excess of the candidates from either major party.
LOLOLOLOLOLOL not voting for someone unless they can believably promise passing a constitutional amendment?? Man I needed a laugh thanks for that.
Yes, Someone skipped civics class on separation of powers. And Russian plant Jill Stein! I still have that photo of she an Flynn with Putin at the RT function.
I'm pretty sure even the folks who run the ERA Coalition would not advise that you do this. If you care about the ERA, you need to focus on Democrats retaining control of Congress AND having the majorities at the state level for ratification. The President can't do anything about either of those things.
You’re throwing your vote away. I’m sorry that we live in a country with a two-party system, but that’s the reality. Your vote should be used to choose the best option from the two main parties. It’s as simple as that. You might as well be voting for trump by voting third party, which means you’re throwing yourself under the bus.
Yes, let's vote for Jill Stein. See how far that gets us.
Yesterday it was a rabid anti-hunting troll. Today we have the "oooh Harris is ____fill in the blank" crowd.
We'll see more purity ponies as the election gets closer.
Presidents do not introduce legislation. That is the role of Congress - the Legislative branch of the government. The President is head of the Executive Branch. Presidents sign bills (legislation) into law once the bill has passed both the House and Senate. Voting for Jill Stein is voting for Trump. And even Jill Stein cannot get the Equal Rights Amendment introduced into Congress. Nor can she get it passed by a 2/3 majority. I recommend reading the Constitution.
You've certainly put me in my place. Goodbye.
I didn’t write the Constitution. Not sure why you are upset with my comment. Also, I did not create the two party system that we have now.
Though it has become more and more common in the Age of the Internet, I do not appreciate having someone talk down to me, especially when she doesn't bother to first engage in polite discussion. You did not create the two party system "that we have now," but your subservience to it, perpetuates it. In any case, as you have made so many other (11!) readers "like" your having set me straight, you must be right. Supporting the Democrat party has certainly lead to financial and political equality, as well as peace around the world. Goodbye; I won't bother you, again.
Seriously, I have no idea why you are so angry with me. I don’t like the two party system either, but I am voting for someone who can actually get elected because the lives of my nieces and great nieces are at stake without reproductive freedom. My LGBTQAI friends will lose their civil rights if Felon 34 is elected. Project 2025 is real. Building a viable third party is a grand goal, but it’s not going to happen in the next 90 days.
I believe one of her rallies today she talked about restoring Roe
Need specifics please? Which rally today?