Finally had a minute to comment after an excruciating 17-hour drive to visit my parents PHEW. My mom (both my parents are pro-choice right-wing nutjobs who have never supported a pro-choice candidate in their lives but continue to think that it doesn't matter) just asked me WHY I am so "passionate" about abortion rights and I was delighted to go on a half hour + rant and was able to use AED articles to back up every single thing I told her. She kept trying to say that even though I'm "passionate" about this issue, it's just something people "don't think about" and is a "tiny microcosm "and I argued quite the opposite. If 50% of the population has laws made that affect them directly *even if they think those laws won't affect them*, how is it so small? If people in red states (like the one they live in) are voting overwhelmingly to support abortion ballot measures, HOW is that a small issue? I said that if we don't have bodily autonomy, we do not live in a free country and that's the beginning and end of it. She obviously still thinks I'm nuts but also might be right. I mentioned women getting prosecuted for miscarriages and the GOP's going after birth control. I'm very proud of myself and am hoping against hope that when she votes in favor of the abortion ballot measure in her state that will hopefully appear in November, she doesn't do it for me but rather because it's the right fuckin thing to vote for. Thanks to you, Jessica, and to all my internet homies here for making these times more bearable. 🖤🖤🖤
Sounds exhausting but you did a good job so you should be proud. We have (or had) here one conservative commenter, and he was bothered the other day by some of the leftist language in the guest post. He threw out some conservative buzzwords, and then someone else very kindly asked him not to use the George Soros trope, and that really set him off (turns out his wife is Jewish and it sounds like they practice). I'm guessing he ended his subscription because the comments are no longer there (unless JV deleted). Anyway my point is that, just like your parents, there definitely do exist pro-choice right-wing nutjobs. I think (or hope) that some of the pro-choice people voting Republican aren't as steeped in the right-wing propaganda as others, but it's important for all of us to remember that there are a lot of people who agree with us on reproductive rights but definitely don't agree with other ideas about economic and social justice that are common on our side. Those issues are much harder; I think it's actually pretty easy to believe the state should have no involvement in pregnancy. And I think, given the election math, it's good practice for people who vote Democrat to have some engagement with people who disagree on some things, because we don't want to find ourselves caught in a bubble. (Fwiw I'm always trying to convince my dad why a lot of his conservative instincts don't actually play out well in reality). So kudos to you for having that talk with your parents. I just hope that Democrats can reach far enough into the middle to prevent the catastrophe of a full Republican takeover in 2025. 🤞
Why this constant insistence that cruelty is at the bottom of the anti-abortion movement? Even in your own discussion, you cite over and over again how these people are utterly convinced that a woman's pregnancy is a person, even from the moment of fertilization. They are not kidding. All of their arguments for burdening women extend from this and this alone.
And both you and they place men outside of the picture as to any role they have in the pregnancy. He just doesn't seem to exist. He doesn't seem to need to.
The cruelty is in the insistence on criminalization rather than support of women in desperate circumstances and medical emergencies, in the airy dismissal of the suffering of women and of doomed infants, in the criminalization of miscarriage, in the open contempt they show for women, in the vicious glee with which they discuss ever more draconian laws and penalties. I used to give the anti-abortionists the benefit of the doubt, but with their actions and words they have made that impossible. Although the Jesus they claim to follow was all about compassion, I have yet to encounter, read, or hear an anti-abortionist who has expressed any real compassion for the actual people harmed by the laws they advocate for.
"I used to give the anti-abortionists the benefit of the doubt ..."
Really? And what was the source of the benefit of doubt? What do you mean by "benefit of doubt"? Do you think a woman's pregnancy in any way qualifies as a person?
I used to give their SINCERITY the benefit of the doubt: I used to believe that many of them genuinely care about and believe they are saving babies, have compassion for women and believe our lives are also valuable, and want to find real and compassionate solutions to complex and heartbreaking situations. I have seen no evidence of any of that and can no longer believe it.
Huh. My take from a year of reading AED is that the anti-abortionist **aren’t consistent or utterly convinced about anything**. I don’t know what they actually believe or what they intend. I see evidence they don’t know the law, or healthcare, or much about life, or history, or their own theology.
But I just think they and their policies cause harm over and over again and must be kept away from the reigns of power because their bad ideas are dumb and dangerous and, yes, cruel.
Maybe it was a long time ago, but there was an anti-abortion terrorist front. They killed people and bombed clinics. It was all about “saving the babies”. I myself survived a dose of anthrax.
With regard to Mike DeWine in Ohio, I lived in Ohio for 17 years, and I lost track of how many political offices he has held. He never met a political office he did not want to hold. He's been Secretary of State and US senator in addition to governor and other offices I'm of which I'm unaware. He just wants to be in the game, he doesn't care what position he plays. He's in office for the benefit of Mike DeWine and no one else. His policy will always shift toward the far right especially if that's the way the wind is blowing.
“If you wanted to throw your laptop across the room, you’re not alone! Allen goes further, reminding us what the real end goal is:
“[S]uffering is part of life. It’s most assuredly part of motherhood. The notion that we, as mothers, have agency over the circumstances of our pregnancies, births and even our children, is pure folly. We don’t. We’re just along for the ride. Our calling is to carry our children through it.”
And there it is. Women are born to suffer, and not having control of our bodies is actually just the natural state of things. (It never ceases to amaze me how many of women’s ‘natural’ roles need to be forcibly enshrined in law.”
Numerous commenters continue to point out theocratic language in opinion pieces and articles like this one. “Our calling” is literally Evangelicalese. Liberals love to focus on things like cruelty, but I don’t want to fucking live in a theocracy. And that is what this sort of language is. It is forcing someone’s specific religious beliefs on everyone. Maybe that isn’t as sexy as “cruelty.” I don’t know. But I really, really think you and other feminist writers ought to get up to speed on this theocratic language and stop blaming it on cruelty. Yes, it is cruel. Lots and lots of Americans don’t care about cruelty. Clearly. I’m cynical enough to think many Americans don’t give a shit about anything until they are inconvenienced and bothered. But please try other messaging. You have resources here to help you. Use us.
Well said Andra. I don't want to live in a theocracy and live by other peoples religious beliefs. Forcing people, controlling people, power issues. The side effect is "cruelty" but that is not their main issue especially if one believes a woman is here to pro-create and sacrifice herself. As I listened to Kamala's message she focused on bodily autonomy and keeping the state and the government out of a personal issue. What they are doing is controlling bodily autonomy, then birth control, then LGBTQIA+ issues to suit their beliefs.
I heartily agree with this, but specifically, the whole anti-abortion movement is about the personhood of the pregnancy. They argue that the suffering of women is the service they do for the "unborn child" whose rights are superior to their own. This is most certainly a religious conviction and has no moral, medical or legal arguments.
Yes. It is a faith matter. When I push them, it’s always, “The Bible says X…” and I’m like, “I don’t care what you think the Bible says. Living your life by the Bible is a faith matter. You cannot force anyone else to live according to your reading of the Bible or your faith. That is fascism.” And then they start with the thought terminating statements, and I point every one out. I sometimes quote Bible verses to make my points, because I had to learn chunks of it as a kid. Nothing is going to stop these people except beating the crap out of them in 2024. And failing to call out their Christo-fascism at every turn isn’t helping us do that.
Their concept of personhood is a bit different from what others might hold though. In many cases the "unborn child" is suffering even more than the pregnant woman, and yet they insist on that suffering as part of the fetus' personhood. It's not simply a matter of elevating one person's rights over another's. It's a matter of requiring everyone to follow what they believe is their "god"s will.
As someone who worked in women's healthcare I can assure you, when it comes to them, they don't want to suffer either, they want everyone else to suffer though.
I think this is the best comment I've ever read here. This country has a huge problem with "freedom of religion". We treat it like race, sex, or any other characteristic that a person has which they have no control over. It's not just conservatives. How many on the left whitewash the misogyny (and violence) present in Islam because they place Muslims in a victim class? Obviously you can be a Muslim or a Christian and not believe in or support the bad things in the religion, but that's not the point. The point is that lots of people support very bad things, and do very bad things, and use their religion as justification. And when they attribute it to their "faith", we're stupefied. And they know this. They exploit it. Endlessly. You can speak to it better than I can because of your background, but isn't that what's going on?
And I love the anger in your words. It's vital and essential. Because you spoke a truth. Even the best of us are still attributing what's going on to 'cruelty' when it's more than that. It's their fucking religion and they want things run according to those rules. Maybe theocracy isn't the best word to use to make the popular argument, because it sounds too academic and a huge chunk of Americans recoil from anything academic, but that's what it is. And a majority of Americans don't want it. But if no one is making that argument, if we allow them to continue to obfuscate because their 'religion' is 'protected', that's how they get away with it. If we don't name it, we can't fight it.
Please keep repeating this. It needs to gain traction.
I almost deleted this comment last night, because I was angry when I posted it. I try not to go online when I’m mad, but yesterday was 1. Read Project 2025 for hours; 2. Read an article in The Atlantic that quoted Kristan fucking Hawkins without pushback and then asked a government expert to weigh in on their plans to reform government. To which they replied, “Well, I guess they could, but it would be really hard.” And no pushback whatsoever from the reporter re: Projdct 2025 WHERE THEY OUTLINE IN GREAT DETAIL HOW THEY WILL DO THAT; 3. Get the latest Supreme Court bought-and-paid-for opinion; 4. Read this, where liberals seem to think people with no empathy on both sides of the aisle give a shit about cruelty. I don’t want to add to Jessica’s stress. After messages from my husband, this newsletter is the thing I read first.
But we are running out of time to get our shit together. These people WILL force us to live in a Christo-fascist version of the Taliban. THEY WILL. We DO NOT want that, whatever we believe.
I am not attacking people of faith here. I am still a person of faith despite my upbringing. But it is personal. I alone will answer for it. I cannot force anyone else to live by my faith. I respect that woman’s right to believe it is “her calling” to suffer. If that’s how she wants to live, I don’t give a shit. BUT I WILL NOT LIVE THAT WAY. I WILL NOT.
I'm glad you didn't delete it. I like that almost all the comments here are us validating and supporting each other, that there's very rarely any confrontation here (at least that's the way I perceive it). But a trusted community member should be able to challenge flaws in our thinking, for the good of the movement, especially when her credentials on the matter are impeccable. I don't think Jessica sees that many of the comments, but I'm sure she would appreciate the insight and understand the sense in which it's given. I wanted you to know that I thought your tone was appropriate because it conveyed urgency. And if anyone thought it was harsh I hoped that my reply comment would add context or expand the discussion.
You have seen the evil of these people up close (and 'evil' is my characterization, when one is certain about the justice of something that causes the suffering of others, and doesn't care) and I think you feel a duty to warn the rest of us of the danger. That's a virtue, and I find your words are always written in that spirit.
If Republicans win the election, I think the more secular factions of the party will come into conflict with the religious faction(s). But it will be in an environment in which they have complete control so it will be like the factions in Iran jostling for power. Our old system of government might not be salvageable (and it might not be desirable to save it anyway), and either way the American people will have to find ways to dislodge the dictatorship. I'd rather it not come to that, but I do believe that if Republicans win they will quickly become extremely unpopular, and if we can't show the public beforehand how bad it will be then they're going to have to see it for themselves. The old Democratic party will die and be replaced by whatever the resistance movement becomes. And if that's what needs to happen, that's what needs to happen I guess. I'm trying to stay sane in the face of the unimaginable, and I have to hold on to hope that if they really get to do what they want to do, the people will not like it, and they will fight back. We're not (yet) Russia or Iran where the citizens are used to being powerless.
I like your post, but I disagree with this, "The point is that lots of people support very bad things, and do very bad things, and use their religion as justification." These people are sincere in their religious convictions, they are not excuses, they are rational arguments in their own minds. This is possible and our only defense against such convictions is freedom of speech and freedom of religion which necessarily includes freedom from religion.
That's true and it's utterly terrifying. I didn't necessarily mean that they weren't sincere or didn't think it was rational, just that it was objectively bad, which I measure by the suffering. Which they think is a good thing. The problem we are having is in making freedom OF religion coexist with freedom FROM religion. These people insist that their religion requires them to violate others' rights, and that such behavior should be protected. This is not compatible with liberal democracy.
All true. Anyone who grew up under Roman Catholicism in the 1950s and 60 (and maybe now, too) can tell you that's called "redemptive suffering." What they always said was, "the more you suffer in *this* life, the brighter your crown in heaven." Redemptive suffering was/is foundational to catholicism. Just as an example from my childhood: I was constantly told stories of child martyrs who were exactly my age, complete with visions etc. In second grade, I was enrolled in a catholic children's book club, where I got a book a month. We were poor and had few books in the house, and I was the kind of kid who would read anything as long as it held still long enough. I clearly remember that the first three books were hagiographies of catholic girl martyrs from such exotic (to me, at age 8) locations as Greece, Rome, and the northeast American woodlands. After 3 books I realized that the books were the 50s version of cut and replace, with a few irrelevant cultural details thrown in, so I lost interest. So the redemptive suffering brainwashing in catholicism, at least, starts as early as a kid begins to talk, and is absolutely relentless. And don't get me started on graphic church images that depict martyrs writhing in unimaginable torture! As a kid with a painful congenital orthopoedic disability, who was in and out of the hospital and wore braces, a cast, and other such torture devices for years, I was the recipient of this nonsense--still am, matter of fact. I guess it's similar in American Protestant evangelicalism.
You know what’s funny? The Baptist church I grew up in spent more time preaching about why Catholics are going to hell than any other faith. Even as they co-opted the Old Testament suffering and St Augustine’s views on sex.
That’s a whole other thing we don’t want to live through. Because Mike Johnson and Samuel Alito may band together now for power’s sake, but each thinks the other is going to hell because their faith is “wrong.” So if the Christo-Fascists gain power, they will fight a holy war over whose faith is going to rule. And nobody anywhere is talking about that.
Oh, yeah, typical. My family's catholic church preached constantly about "heretics" (meaning non-catholics. Jews were "christ-killers." Everybody else was unmentionable. Unbelievers were committing the one unpardonable sin, of course.) None of us kids were allowed to have friends, attend birthday parties, etc with kids who weren't catholics. I remember when, in 7th grade, a classmate invited me to attend a vacation bible study group. Her dad was a Baptist minister, so the answer was "no", because of course it was. Her family, like mine, was poor, and the girl was, like me, an outcast. I perceived that invitation as a tentative attempt at friendship. But that was forbidden by our church. (It was also forbidden at school for outcasts to have friends...so no possibility of any sort of solidarity among the oppressed there either.) I think you are right about the holy war part, once they take power, with those of us who aren't religious, like me, caught in the middle, imprisoned, or simply gotten rid of. I have nightmares about being forced to go to church--*any* church--as I was as a child.
Yes. Christianity is a cult of suffering. I suppose it became as popular throughout history as it did because it was a most extraordinary story that could be used to keep the masses quiescent in their suffering at the hands of the elites who controlled all the wealth and power. And if you were among those masses, and you couldn't really do anything to better your situation, then perhaps it at least gave you some comfort. But we need to strive for better than that in the modern world.
Bingo. Not to mention, if you *did* somehow get the idea that you could better your situation, you (and anybody who thought or did the same) definitely would be threatened not only with whatever was done to enslaved people who revolted, but also that you would be tortured eternally. I said "would", not "could." And object lessons like the Spartacus rebellion were likely held up as threats. The christians simply built on those very real threats--thus, the Inquisition, witch hunts, crusades, murder/extermination of "heretics", etc etc. I couldn't call such a life comfort. Not even with the "Yer reward's in heaven (suckers)" part. That sort of thing only works when the rulers keep people starving, sick, and--let's not forget--illiterate. Pretty paintings and sculptures and expensive buildings only go so far.
Yes. It got to be the world's biggest religion, and Western civilization came to dominate the world. I assume each of those helped the other, but I'm not an expert to dissect the association.
We should also have constitutional amendments saying that the government cannot restrict access to an abortion in any way. This includes waiting periods, hospital privileges, funding misinformation from "crisis" centers, etc.
How about our compromise on abortion fall squarely between forcing a woman to have one (China) and prohibiting a woman from getting one (Texas). In other words, it is up to the woman and the government should stay out of it.
That Cynthia Allen article was titled "Kate Cox, abortion and our culture that rejects suffering and brokenness." According to fundamentalists, it is evidently an affront to God to prevent or alleviate suffering, which is ironic for a religion that proclaims to advocate for mercy. This ideology is called "natural law," which sounds like an oxymoron. How is it "natural" if it needs to be enforced through law? An absurdity even Jessica pointed out in this article "It never ceases to amaze me how many of women’s ‘natural’ roles need to be forcibly enshrined in law." I call it the Curse of Eve doctrine inspired by the Curse of Ham doctrine the Church used to justify four hundred years of enslavement of Black people, only it's for women. These people are psychopaths.
This reminds me of reading about how when they first began to use chloroform for women in labor in England, there was an actual, serious debate about whether doctors were imperiling women's souls by alleviating their pain in childbirth. (Queen Victoria struck a blow for women when she used it - and sang it's praises - when giving birth to her 8th child.) They really do believe women have a god-given duty to suffer.
It is AGONY it receive a poor prenatal diagnosis. Your mind reels looking for any positive stories with your diagnosis, any possible way to beat the odds, any possible way to save your baby. There isn’t one. That’s the hard reality.
To purposely put out false information and string along people who are desperate, truly desperate for hope, is beyond cruel. Their world has already fallen apart once, when the ultrasound was no longer routine. Now it shatters AGAIN when their terminal child - the one that was supposed to beat the odds - arrives earth-side only to die the traumatic death that everyone knew was waiting. Why? Where is the good in that?
A peaceful death is a heavy gift to give, but is one that is loving and merciful. For self proclaimed Christians, these people really fail at understanding mercy.
And this lady said that this suffering was a cross SHE was willing to bear that she'd only be forcing on her baby. A baby whose sole experience in their brief time on this earth would be excruciating pain and nothing else. The sheer cruelty on *your own baby* is unbelievable.
religious fundamentalism is exactly this: Wretched, miserable, villainous, joy-sucking, pushed and embraced by the most contemptible people on the planet. It is indelibly tied to abuse, misogyny, encroachments on civil rights and assaults on basic freedoms.
These reactions to Kate Cox are appalling. I really have a hard time understanding this attitude to women. Thank you for bringing attention to this, even though it is so hard to read.
Finally had a minute to comment after an excruciating 17-hour drive to visit my parents PHEW. My mom (both my parents are pro-choice right-wing nutjobs who have never supported a pro-choice candidate in their lives but continue to think that it doesn't matter) just asked me WHY I am so "passionate" about abortion rights and I was delighted to go on a half hour + rant and was able to use AED articles to back up every single thing I told her. She kept trying to say that even though I'm "passionate" about this issue, it's just something people "don't think about" and is a "tiny microcosm "and I argued quite the opposite. If 50% of the population has laws made that affect them directly *even if they think those laws won't affect them*, how is it so small? If people in red states (like the one they live in) are voting overwhelmingly to support abortion ballot measures, HOW is that a small issue? I said that if we don't have bodily autonomy, we do not live in a free country and that's the beginning and end of it. She obviously still thinks I'm nuts but also might be right. I mentioned women getting prosecuted for miscarriages and the GOP's going after birth control. I'm very proud of myself and am hoping against hope that when she votes in favor of the abortion ballot measure in her state that will hopefully appear in November, she doesn't do it for me but rather because it's the right fuckin thing to vote for. Thanks to you, Jessica, and to all my internet homies here for making these times more bearable. 🖤🖤🖤
Sounds exhausting but you did a good job so you should be proud. We have (or had) here one conservative commenter, and he was bothered the other day by some of the leftist language in the guest post. He threw out some conservative buzzwords, and then someone else very kindly asked him not to use the George Soros trope, and that really set him off (turns out his wife is Jewish and it sounds like they practice). I'm guessing he ended his subscription because the comments are no longer there (unless JV deleted). Anyway my point is that, just like your parents, there definitely do exist pro-choice right-wing nutjobs. I think (or hope) that some of the pro-choice people voting Republican aren't as steeped in the right-wing propaganda as others, but it's important for all of us to remember that there are a lot of people who agree with us on reproductive rights but definitely don't agree with other ideas about economic and social justice that are common on our side. Those issues are much harder; I think it's actually pretty easy to believe the state should have no involvement in pregnancy. And I think, given the election math, it's good practice for people who vote Democrat to have some engagement with people who disagree on some things, because we don't want to find ourselves caught in a bubble. (Fwiw I'm always trying to convince my dad why a lot of his conservative instincts don't actually play out well in reality). So kudos to you for having that talk with your parents. I just hope that Democrats can reach far enough into the middle to prevent the catastrophe of a full Republican takeover in 2025. 🤞
Interesting article that came out today...https://news.yahoo.com/hearts-hurt-men-impacted-abortion-135245167.html
Why this constant insistence that cruelty is at the bottom of the anti-abortion movement? Even in your own discussion, you cite over and over again how these people are utterly convinced that a woman's pregnancy is a person, even from the moment of fertilization. They are not kidding. All of their arguments for burdening women extend from this and this alone.
And both you and they place men outside of the picture as to any role they have in the pregnancy. He just doesn't seem to exist. He doesn't seem to need to.
The cruelty is in the insistence on criminalization rather than support of women in desperate circumstances and medical emergencies, in the airy dismissal of the suffering of women and of doomed infants, in the criminalization of miscarriage, in the open contempt they show for women, in the vicious glee with which they discuss ever more draconian laws and penalties. I used to give the anti-abortionists the benefit of the doubt, but with their actions and words they have made that impossible. Although the Jesus they claim to follow was all about compassion, I have yet to encounter, read, or hear an anti-abortionist who has expressed any real compassion for the actual people harmed by the laws they advocate for.
"I used to give the anti-abortionists the benefit of the doubt ..."
Really? And what was the source of the benefit of doubt? What do you mean by "benefit of doubt"? Do you think a woman's pregnancy in any way qualifies as a person?
I used to give their SINCERITY the benefit of the doubt: I used to believe that many of them genuinely care about and believe they are saving babies, have compassion for women and believe our lives are also valuable, and want to find real and compassionate solutions to complex and heartbreaking situations. I have seen no evidence of any of that and can no longer believe it.
Huh. My take from a year of reading AED is that the anti-abortionist **aren’t consistent or utterly convinced about anything**. I don’t know what they actually believe or what they intend. I see evidence they don’t know the law, or healthcare, or much about life, or history, or their own theology.
But I just think they and their policies cause harm over and over again and must be kept away from the reigns of power because their bad ideas are dumb and dangerous and, yes, cruel.
Maybe it was a long time ago, but there was an anti-abortion terrorist front. They killed people and bombed clinics. It was all about “saving the babies”. I myself survived a dose of anthrax.
With regard to Mike DeWine in Ohio, I lived in Ohio for 17 years, and I lost track of how many political offices he has held. He never met a political office he did not want to hold. He's been Secretary of State and US senator in addition to governor and other offices I'm of which I'm unaware. He just wants to be in the game, he doesn't care what position he plays. He's in office for the benefit of Mike DeWine and no one else. His policy will always shift toward the far right especially if that's the way the wind is blowing.
“If you wanted to throw your laptop across the room, you’re not alone! Allen goes further, reminding us what the real end goal is:
“[S]uffering is part of life. It’s most assuredly part of motherhood. The notion that we, as mothers, have agency over the circumstances of our pregnancies, births and even our children, is pure folly. We don’t. We’re just along for the ride. Our calling is to carry our children through it.”
And there it is. Women are born to suffer, and not having control of our bodies is actually just the natural state of things. (It never ceases to amaze me how many of women’s ‘natural’ roles need to be forcibly enshrined in law.”
Numerous commenters continue to point out theocratic language in opinion pieces and articles like this one. “Our calling” is literally Evangelicalese. Liberals love to focus on things like cruelty, but I don’t want to fucking live in a theocracy. And that is what this sort of language is. It is forcing someone’s specific religious beliefs on everyone. Maybe that isn’t as sexy as “cruelty.” I don’t know. But I really, really think you and other feminist writers ought to get up to speed on this theocratic language and stop blaming it on cruelty. Yes, it is cruel. Lots and lots of Americans don’t care about cruelty. Clearly. I’m cynical enough to think many Americans don’t give a shit about anything until they are inconvenienced and bothered. But please try other messaging. You have resources here to help you. Use us.
Well said Andra. I don't want to live in a theocracy and live by other peoples religious beliefs. Forcing people, controlling people, power issues. The side effect is "cruelty" but that is not their main issue especially if one believes a woman is here to pro-create and sacrifice herself. As I listened to Kamala's message she focused on bodily autonomy and keeping the state and the government out of a personal issue. What they are doing is controlling bodily autonomy, then birth control, then LGBTQIA+ issues to suit their beliefs.
I heartily agree with this, but specifically, the whole anti-abortion movement is about the personhood of the pregnancy. They argue that the suffering of women is the service they do for the "unborn child" whose rights are superior to their own. This is most certainly a religious conviction and has no moral, medical or legal arguments.
Yes. It is a faith matter. When I push them, it’s always, “The Bible says X…” and I’m like, “I don’t care what you think the Bible says. Living your life by the Bible is a faith matter. You cannot force anyone else to live according to your reading of the Bible or your faith. That is fascism.” And then they start with the thought terminating statements, and I point every one out. I sometimes quote Bible verses to make my points, because I had to learn chunks of it as a kid. Nothing is going to stop these people except beating the crap out of them in 2024. And failing to call out their Christo-fascism at every turn isn’t helping us do that.
Their concept of personhood is a bit different from what others might hold though. In many cases the "unborn child" is suffering even more than the pregnant woman, and yet they insist on that suffering as part of the fetus' personhood. It's not simply a matter of elevating one person's rights over another's. It's a matter of requiring everyone to follow what they believe is their "god"s will.
As someone who worked in women's healthcare I can assure you, when it comes to them, they don't want to suffer either, they want everyone else to suffer though.
I think this is the best comment I've ever read here. This country has a huge problem with "freedom of religion". We treat it like race, sex, or any other characteristic that a person has which they have no control over. It's not just conservatives. How many on the left whitewash the misogyny (and violence) present in Islam because they place Muslims in a victim class? Obviously you can be a Muslim or a Christian and not believe in or support the bad things in the religion, but that's not the point. The point is that lots of people support very bad things, and do very bad things, and use their religion as justification. And when they attribute it to their "faith", we're stupefied. And they know this. They exploit it. Endlessly. You can speak to it better than I can because of your background, but isn't that what's going on?
And I love the anger in your words. It's vital and essential. Because you spoke a truth. Even the best of us are still attributing what's going on to 'cruelty' when it's more than that. It's their fucking religion and they want things run according to those rules. Maybe theocracy isn't the best word to use to make the popular argument, because it sounds too academic and a huge chunk of Americans recoil from anything academic, but that's what it is. And a majority of Americans don't want it. But if no one is making that argument, if we allow them to continue to obfuscate because their 'religion' is 'protected', that's how they get away with it. If we don't name it, we can't fight it.
Please keep repeating this. It needs to gain traction.
I almost deleted this comment last night, because I was angry when I posted it. I try not to go online when I’m mad, but yesterday was 1. Read Project 2025 for hours; 2. Read an article in The Atlantic that quoted Kristan fucking Hawkins without pushback and then asked a government expert to weigh in on their plans to reform government. To which they replied, “Well, I guess they could, but it would be really hard.” And no pushback whatsoever from the reporter re: Projdct 2025 WHERE THEY OUTLINE IN GREAT DETAIL HOW THEY WILL DO THAT; 3. Get the latest Supreme Court bought-and-paid-for opinion; 4. Read this, where liberals seem to think people with no empathy on both sides of the aisle give a shit about cruelty. I don’t want to add to Jessica’s stress. After messages from my husband, this newsletter is the thing I read first.
But we are running out of time to get our shit together. These people WILL force us to live in a Christo-fascist version of the Taliban. THEY WILL. We DO NOT want that, whatever we believe.
I am not attacking people of faith here. I am still a person of faith despite my upbringing. But it is personal. I alone will answer for it. I cannot force anyone else to live by my faith. I respect that woman’s right to believe it is “her calling” to suffer. If that’s how she wants to live, I don’t give a shit. BUT I WILL NOT LIVE THAT WAY. I WILL NOT.
I'm glad you didn't delete it. I like that almost all the comments here are us validating and supporting each other, that there's very rarely any confrontation here (at least that's the way I perceive it). But a trusted community member should be able to challenge flaws in our thinking, for the good of the movement, especially when her credentials on the matter are impeccable. I don't think Jessica sees that many of the comments, but I'm sure she would appreciate the insight and understand the sense in which it's given. I wanted you to know that I thought your tone was appropriate because it conveyed urgency. And if anyone thought it was harsh I hoped that my reply comment would add context or expand the discussion.
You have seen the evil of these people up close (and 'evil' is my characterization, when one is certain about the justice of something that causes the suffering of others, and doesn't care) and I think you feel a duty to warn the rest of us of the danger. That's a virtue, and I find your words are always written in that spirit.
If Republicans win the election, I think the more secular factions of the party will come into conflict with the religious faction(s). But it will be in an environment in which they have complete control so it will be like the factions in Iran jostling for power. Our old system of government might not be salvageable (and it might not be desirable to save it anyway), and either way the American people will have to find ways to dislodge the dictatorship. I'd rather it not come to that, but I do believe that if Republicans win they will quickly become extremely unpopular, and if we can't show the public beforehand how bad it will be then they're going to have to see it for themselves. The old Democratic party will die and be replaced by whatever the resistance movement becomes. And if that's what needs to happen, that's what needs to happen I guess. I'm trying to stay sane in the face of the unimaginable, and I have to hold on to hope that if they really get to do what they want to do, the people will not like it, and they will fight back. We're not (yet) Russia or Iran where the citizens are used to being powerless.
Thank you Zach. Appreciate your words and clarity.
I like your post, but I disagree with this, "The point is that lots of people support very bad things, and do very bad things, and use their religion as justification." These people are sincere in their religious convictions, they are not excuses, they are rational arguments in their own minds. This is possible and our only defense against such convictions is freedom of speech and freedom of religion which necessarily includes freedom from religion.
That's true and it's utterly terrifying. I didn't necessarily mean that they weren't sincere or didn't think it was rational, just that it was objectively bad, which I measure by the suffering. Which they think is a good thing. The problem we are having is in making freedom OF religion coexist with freedom FROM religion. These people insist that their religion requires them to violate others' rights, and that such behavior should be protected. This is not compatible with liberal democracy.
All true. Anyone who grew up under Roman Catholicism in the 1950s and 60 (and maybe now, too) can tell you that's called "redemptive suffering." What they always said was, "the more you suffer in *this* life, the brighter your crown in heaven." Redemptive suffering was/is foundational to catholicism. Just as an example from my childhood: I was constantly told stories of child martyrs who were exactly my age, complete with visions etc. In second grade, I was enrolled in a catholic children's book club, where I got a book a month. We were poor and had few books in the house, and I was the kind of kid who would read anything as long as it held still long enough. I clearly remember that the first three books were hagiographies of catholic girl martyrs from such exotic (to me, at age 8) locations as Greece, Rome, and the northeast American woodlands. After 3 books I realized that the books were the 50s version of cut and replace, with a few irrelevant cultural details thrown in, so I lost interest. So the redemptive suffering brainwashing in catholicism, at least, starts as early as a kid begins to talk, and is absolutely relentless. And don't get me started on graphic church images that depict martyrs writhing in unimaginable torture! As a kid with a painful congenital orthopoedic disability, who was in and out of the hospital and wore braces, a cast, and other such torture devices for years, I was the recipient of this nonsense--still am, matter of fact. I guess it's similar in American Protestant evangelicalism.
You know what’s funny? The Baptist church I grew up in spent more time preaching about why Catholics are going to hell than any other faith. Even as they co-opted the Old Testament suffering and St Augustine’s views on sex.
That’s a whole other thing we don’t want to live through. Because Mike Johnson and Samuel Alito may band together now for power’s sake, but each thinks the other is going to hell because their faith is “wrong.” So if the Christo-Fascists gain power, they will fight a holy war over whose faith is going to rule. And nobody anywhere is talking about that.
Oh, yeah, typical. My family's catholic church preached constantly about "heretics" (meaning non-catholics. Jews were "christ-killers." Everybody else was unmentionable. Unbelievers were committing the one unpardonable sin, of course.) None of us kids were allowed to have friends, attend birthday parties, etc with kids who weren't catholics. I remember when, in 7th grade, a classmate invited me to attend a vacation bible study group. Her dad was a Baptist minister, so the answer was "no", because of course it was. Her family, like mine, was poor, and the girl was, like me, an outcast. I perceived that invitation as a tentative attempt at friendship. But that was forbidden by our church. (It was also forbidden at school for outcasts to have friends...so no possibility of any sort of solidarity among the oppressed there either.) I think you are right about the holy war part, once they take power, with those of us who aren't religious, like me, caught in the middle, imprisoned, or simply gotten rid of. I have nightmares about being forced to go to church--*any* church--as I was as a child.
Yes. Christianity is a cult of suffering. I suppose it became as popular throughout history as it did because it was a most extraordinary story that could be used to keep the masses quiescent in their suffering at the hands of the elites who controlled all the wealth and power. And if you were among those masses, and you couldn't really do anything to better your situation, then perhaps it at least gave you some comfort. But we need to strive for better than that in the modern world.
Bingo. Not to mention, if you *did* somehow get the idea that you could better your situation, you (and anybody who thought or did the same) definitely would be threatened not only with whatever was done to enslaved people who revolted, but also that you would be tortured eternally. I said "would", not "could." And object lessons like the Spartacus rebellion were likely held up as threats. The christians simply built on those very real threats--thus, the Inquisition, witch hunts, crusades, murder/extermination of "heretics", etc etc. I couldn't call such a life comfort. Not even with the "Yer reward's in heaven (suckers)" part. That sort of thing only works when the rulers keep people starving, sick, and--let's not forget--illiterate. Pretty paintings and sculptures and expensive buildings only go so far.
Yes. It got to be the world's biggest religion, and Western civilization came to dominate the world. I assume each of those helped the other, but I'm not an expert to dissect the association.
We should also have constitutional amendments saying that the government cannot restrict access to an abortion in any way. This includes waiting periods, hospital privileges, funding misinformation from "crisis" centers, etc.
How about our compromise on abortion fall squarely between forcing a woman to have one (China) and prohibiting a woman from getting one (Texas). In other words, it is up to the woman and the government should stay out of it.
That Cynthia Allen article was titled "Kate Cox, abortion and our culture that rejects suffering and brokenness." According to fundamentalists, it is evidently an affront to God to prevent or alleviate suffering, which is ironic for a religion that proclaims to advocate for mercy. This ideology is called "natural law," which sounds like an oxymoron. How is it "natural" if it needs to be enforced through law? An absurdity even Jessica pointed out in this article "It never ceases to amaze me how many of women’s ‘natural’ roles need to be forcibly enshrined in law." I call it the Curse of Eve doctrine inspired by the Curse of Ham doctrine the Church used to justify four hundred years of enslavement of Black people, only it's for women. These people are psychopaths.
This reminds me of reading about how when they first began to use chloroform for women in labor in England, there was an actual, serious debate about whether doctors were imperiling women's souls by alleviating their pain in childbirth. (Queen Victoria struck a blow for women when she used it - and sang it's praises - when giving birth to her 8th child.) They really do believe women have a god-given duty to suffer.
Wow. That's wild.
🤢
Put them in a cage with some tigers and hyenas and let nature take it's course.
Does anyone have a non firewalled link to
The New York Times, Linda Greenhouse wrote a remarkable piece about the similarities between Kate Cox and Sherri Chessen
Try this:
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/22/opinion/history-texas-abortion.html?unlocked_article_code=1.IE0.HbZc.MYHvojBGBXEN&smid=url-share
it worked for me. I closed the dropped down menu on the bottom and scrolled. Then printed to pdf.
Still screwed. Thanks for the effort.
☹️
Not sure if this will work.
A Forgotten Chapter of Abortion History Repeats Itself https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/22/opinion/history-texas-abortion.html?unlocked_article_code=1.IE0.9u0E.YSPejbKs9y5i&smid=nytcore-android-share
Unfortunately not, but thanks for trying 😀
It has to be sent directly to an email address or text
Thanks Robert 🤗. If you're so inclined Laura, text me at 3135690715
It is AGONY it receive a poor prenatal diagnosis. Your mind reels looking for any positive stories with your diagnosis, any possible way to beat the odds, any possible way to save your baby. There isn’t one. That’s the hard reality.
To purposely put out false information and string along people who are desperate, truly desperate for hope, is beyond cruel. Their world has already fallen apart once, when the ultrasound was no longer routine. Now it shatters AGAIN when their terminal child - the one that was supposed to beat the odds - arrives earth-side only to die the traumatic death that everyone knew was waiting. Why? Where is the good in that?
A peaceful death is a heavy gift to give, but is one that is loving and merciful. For self proclaimed Christians, these people really fail at understanding mercy.
And this lady said that this suffering was a cross SHE was willing to bear that she'd only be forcing on her baby. A baby whose sole experience in their brief time on this earth would be excruciating pain and nothing else. The sheer cruelty on *your own baby* is unbelievable.
It’s not about her baby. It’s all about her.
Indeed it is.
Quite a departure from Israeli women who threw themselves on top of their children to protect them from the terrorist attacks.
I’ve given this a lot of thought and I agree that the woman in Fort Worth should have a lifetime of suffering.
lol I’m not gonna lie this woman really set me off
religious fundamentalism is exactly this: Wretched, miserable, villainous, joy-sucking, pushed and embraced by the most contemptible people on the planet. It is indelibly tied to abuse, misogyny, encroachments on civil rights and assaults on basic freedoms.
Jill Filipovic
These reactions to Kate Cox are appalling. I really have a hard time understanding this attitude to women. Thank you for bringing attention to this, even though it is so hard to read.