Ms. Valenti -- I'm a male looking for an education on abortion. It's particularly necessary since the Dobbs ruling has made the matter a political football. My wife recommended you, I have subscribed, I check in almost daily; you do a thorough job reporting excesses, errors, and misrepresentations on the anti-abortion side. Here is my request--it's for some positive information: Precisely what does the pro-choice side recommend or want or work toward? Every nation/culture/people has some sort of law/regulation/practice regarding abortion, yes? What nation or political entity or culture gets it right, in your opinion? What is a program or policy or 'regime' that you judge to be correct & just --either one that exists or one that is just envisioned? What are the principles, the practices, the results? I do have the Kolbert & Kay book CONTROLLING WOMEN. But what other resources, info, plans could you point me to ? Make sense? Thanks for any help. JOHN
If you read Valenti, you will notice how often she makes the point that "pregnancy is too complicated to legislate." This goal of non-legislation of pregnancy only makes sense if you believe women are fully human and entitled to the ownership of their own bodies from a civil perspective. From your subscription list, it appears you may be Catholic, so I realize that women's right to full bodily autonomy may not be compatible with that religious tradition.
The more you learn the more you realize it's a personal health care decision, and that there are no demonstrable benefits to society of any regulation, excepting that groups and individuals should not be able to mislead women into thinking they are medical professionals when they are not (and that's something you'd apply to every other kind of health care too). The other side has a deep web of lies (or myths if you prefer) about the practice of abortion. The things they say happen, don't happen. The things they say would happen, without regulations, wouldn't happen. If you want a good model, from what I know Canada would be one. The problem in the United States is that the deceptions have such a hold on the public imagination.
When I saw the headline I immediately thought of our own state’s (Texas’) homegrown antiabortion pedophile. My question: is the real motive of the anti-abortion movement to produce more victims for child abusers? Just asking’. (Hmmm I wonder if I should actually ask that of John Seago of Texas Right to Life (sic) who announced to doctors that they’d have to wait until the heartbeat of a doomed fetus stopped.)
At some point, the fact that domestic violence and gun violence are the number one cause of death in pregnancy will get the attention it needs. Having access to contraception without going to a clinic, and being able to access online abortion medication is going to save lives, if only the "pro life" forced birthers will let them.
Speaking of elections, another very important point to be made which I don't think we've seen here before: Almost every race that will determine the outcomes for both the presidency and both houses of Congress will take place in jurisdictions in which abortion is legal.
Voters may not have the same level of concern as those in states with bans, because they've been less personally affected by it. By way of comparison, the reason Republicans control the House is because of districts in California and New York which they won, but which Biden had carried two years earlier. Being in blue states, those voters likely didn't feel the same sense of imminent danger from Republicans as other parts of the country did, and they were probably more upset with their own state governments.
(Even if we had kept the House though, we wouldn't have had 50 in the Senate to scrap the filibuster because of one Kyrsten Sinema. [Manchin is #51 and he's almost certain to be replaced by a Republican next year.])
Yeah those CA and NY districts voted for Biden, but by a lot less than their state overall, so depending on the interpretation they're Republican leaning.
Democrats are more likely to win the House than the Senate next year, even though that's the reverse of who controls the chambers now. The presidency is our lowest hanging fruit though; if we lose that Republicans are guaranteed to have both chambers of Congress, and in that case we won't have to worry about having elections anymore.
I think we're going to win the elections in Ohio. What remains to be seen is whether the Republicans who run Ohio will follow the law the voters pass, or whether they'll do what Florida Republicans have done and find a way to ignore it.
I know we on the left aren’t supposed to do this, but if I learned one thing from my far-right upbringing, it’s this: Whatever someone condemns the loudest, they or someone close to them is doing in private.
Like this Alabama asshole.
Over and over growing up, men in my church who ranted about the evils of lust had a porn habit. Or a mistress. Or both. Men who condemned homosexuality were outed as gay. Men who preached against addiction were addicts.
All to say it’s worth paying attention to what individuals on the right condemn the loudest. In many cases, they’re pretty much telling us how to topple them.
I always assume it's projection and re: strategically listening to what they're saying the loudest, I just gave a talk giving this exact same advice! totally agree
Yes. And I think they project in an even broader sense. They seem to believe everyone else thinks and acts with the same moral standards they do (which is to say, very poor ones) and that's why they don't trust anybody and why they impute malicious motives to anyone with different ideas from them.
Much of this behavior is about protecting themselves or the person they love. They don’t trust themselves not to “yield to temptation,” especially since they know how much they struggle in private. To remove “temptation,” they try to police society by scrubbing it out everywhere.
Take Jerry Falwell Sr as an example. He hated homosexuality. Hated it. Made it his life-mission to eradicate it. And now we know why. His namesake is, at the very minimum, bisexual, something Daddy likely figured out decades ago.
Or look at Mike Pence. (Not that I can stand to. He gives me the creeps.) But his extreme stand on women reveals everything about his likely temptation: lust. He won’t be alone anywhere with a woman who’s not his wife, even in a public setting like a restaurant. I guarantee at some point he either made out with a woman other than his wife or desperately wanted to, and he still beats himself up about it. His obvious discomfort around women is very revealing, at least to me.
That's very good insight. By seeing the problem as the rest of the world, rather than themself, in my view they violate two of the most important values of Christianity: humility and truth. Not that I'm going to convince any of them. Are there any examples of women? Obviously women don't preach; they're expected to keep silent. But I wonder if it says anything about the women who are so prominent in fighting abortion, birth control, sex education, etc. Or is it just a man thing?
I also want to add more nuance to the psychology. These people are fueled by a fuck-ton of resentment. Think of the man living in the closet because he is repeatedly told his natural urges are sin. If he gives in, he will go to hell. Etc. So he suppressed and denies who he is. Then, he watches people just like him have the sanction and the freedom to live authentically, without shame or discrimination. Everywhere he looks, he sees happy, flourishing gay people, and it eats him up because he believes he will go to hell if he has that. So he tries to force these people back into the closet with him as an expression of his own seething resentment and misery.
All this stuff makes it very hard for me to think that there could be such a thing as a healthy version of religion or faith. But it's been pointed out to me that you can't get through to people if your premise is that their belief is the problem. And I guess there is a history of Christians supporting and being instrumental in social justice movements? I have a lot of difficulty with it, because to me the ability to play the 'god' card is so prone to abuse, that it more than cancels out any benefit from believing.
I'm still a person of faith. Because let's face it: whatever we believe about what comes after this life is a faith issue. We can argue whatever we want: pearly gates and streets of gold; 100 virgins awaiting the righteous jihad; another life and another life and another life; purgatory; nothing. But we don't know what happens. Personally, it helps me to believe there's something else, but I understand what faith is now. I can't force anyone else to believe it or follow it. I have no idea whether I'm right. I respect whatever anyone believes, because anyone could be right. Perhaps none of us are. I think it's a more human, compassionate response. That's why I constantly tell my parents to believe whatever speaks to them. I don't attack their faith or tell them not to attend that church or whatever. They have a right to believe what they believe. They don't have a right to force it on me or anyone else.
Plenty of women are anti-abortion because they had one or more and feel ashamed. Or look at how one of the Duggars had an abortion and called it a miscarriage. Growing up, women never discussed this stuff, at least not around me. I wish I could be more helpful here.
But generally, yes. Falwell Jr’s wife likes to have multiple sexual partners, all while punishing women at Liberty for all kinds of petty “infractions.” (Full disclosure: I attended Liberty freshman year. 10-10 do not recommend.)
As another example, one of the most prominent staff wives in my childhood church was a prolific shoplifter. She also had a torrid affair with the youth pastor. They were both arrested for trespassing when they were pulled from a car, naked, in another church parking lot late at night. That was the end of them both there, but they moved on to other ministries. I never trusted either of them growing up but couldn’t describe why.
I also think “The Eyes of Tammy Faye” does a really good job of portraying this dynamic.
Wow. I haven't seen The Eyes of Tammy Faye, but I get the gist. I suppose the question we all have is if girls grow up under a system that's highly oppressive to women, how much responsibility do they have for their actions as women. At what point is it their choice and to what extent are they a victim of abuse. But either way they're hurting others so they need to be stopped.
I’ll be blunt. Misery want’s company, in my opinion. One must promote the normalcy of the suppression especially if your the one being oppressed. I feel saddened and it’s tragic. It’s like the pregnant woman who has an abusive spouse and thinks “well he didn’t hit me in the abdomen “. Sorry for my rant. Hugs to all and appreciate this space.
She is creepy. Yes, I'd be interested in any additional insights Andra has into the women who do this. I know she's said they think they're being virtuous and trying to follow god's plan for women.
People of Praise is a cult. Coney-Barrett has been affiliated with them for a long time. It’s hard for people who’ve never been in something like this to understand what it does to a person. Or how much work it takes to get out. How much a person has to want to leave. She has been conditioned to process a certain way for much of her life. She doesn’t question it. She believes it is “The Truth,” that she “was brought to the kingdom for such a time as this.” She doesn’t think about what her rulings do to those at the other end of them. In her mind, people should have consequences for “sin,” and maybe those consequences will turn some of them to God and “The Truth.” To me, she’s a puppet. I can’t stand her.
And all that SCOTUS needed for standing in the web designer case is the theoretical possibility of "harm" from serving a customer with whom your religious beliefs differ.
To be fair we don't know how scotus would rule on pretty much anything that's going on right now. Conservatives think because they got Dobbs they can get anything they want from this court, but the median justice is still Kavanaugh; it's not like it's Clarence Thomas. Having to put your hope in Brett Kavanaugh to stop things from getting worse is the universe's idea of a sick joke, but I still wouldn't dismiss it entirely 🤷 (but yes, we must always be prepared for the worst).
Red state policies are already doing this, but if it happens slowly enough the voters are like frogs being boiled who don't jump out of the pot. Red state voters already have a chip on their shoulder about everything in this country, so they can probably find a way to blame 'liberals' and 'elites' for their doctor shortage.
Only a doctor could tell you what it would take for her to be brave about breaking the law. As more bans come into effect the situation is only going to get worse.
Ms. Valenti -- I'm a male looking for an education on abortion. It's particularly necessary since the Dobbs ruling has made the matter a political football. My wife recommended you, I have subscribed, I check in almost daily; you do a thorough job reporting excesses, errors, and misrepresentations on the anti-abortion side. Here is my request--it's for some positive information: Precisely what does the pro-choice side recommend or want or work toward? Every nation/culture/people has some sort of law/regulation/practice regarding abortion, yes? What nation or political entity or culture gets it right, in your opinion? What is a program or policy or 'regime' that you judge to be correct & just --either one that exists or one that is just envisioned? What are the principles, the practices, the results? I do have the Kolbert & Kay book CONTROLLING WOMEN. But what other resources, info, plans could you point me to ? Make sense? Thanks for any help. JOHN
If you read Valenti, you will notice how often she makes the point that "pregnancy is too complicated to legislate." This goal of non-legislation of pregnancy only makes sense if you believe women are fully human and entitled to the ownership of their own bodies from a civil perspective. From your subscription list, it appears you may be Catholic, so I realize that women's right to full bodily autonomy may not be compatible with that religious tradition.
The more you learn the more you realize it's a personal health care decision, and that there are no demonstrable benefits to society of any regulation, excepting that groups and individuals should not be able to mislead women into thinking they are medical professionals when they are not (and that's something you'd apply to every other kind of health care too). The other side has a deep web of lies (or myths if you prefer) about the practice of abortion. The things they say happen, don't happen. The things they say would happen, without regulations, wouldn't happen. If you want a good model, from what I know Canada would be one. The problem in the United States is that the deceptions have such a hold on the public imagination.
When I saw the headline I immediately thought of our own state’s (Texas’) homegrown antiabortion pedophile. My question: is the real motive of the anti-abortion movement to produce more victims for child abusers? Just asking’. (Hmmm I wonder if I should actually ask that of John Seago of Texas Right to Life (sic) who announced to doctors that they’d have to wait until the heartbeat of a doomed fetus stopped.)
At some point, the fact that domestic violence and gun violence are the number one cause of death in pregnancy will get the attention it needs. Having access to contraception without going to a clinic, and being able to access online abortion medication is going to save lives, if only the "pro life" forced birthers will let them.
I wish at some point was now. It's shameful.
Speaking of elections, another very important point to be made which I don't think we've seen here before: Almost every race that will determine the outcomes for both the presidency and both houses of Congress will take place in jurisdictions in which abortion is legal.
Voters may not have the same level of concern as those in states with bans, because they've been less personally affected by it. By way of comparison, the reason Republicans control the House is because of districts in California and New York which they won, but which Biden had carried two years earlier. Being in blue states, those voters likely didn't feel the same sense of imminent danger from Republicans as other parts of the country did, and they were probably more upset with their own state governments.
(Even if we had kept the House though, we wouldn't have had 50 in the Senate to scrap the filibuster because of one Kyrsten Sinema. [Manchin is #51 and he's almost certain to be replaced by a Republican next year.])
Zach, this is such a good point - I'll def flag in the next newsletter
Yeah those CA and NY districts voted for Biden, but by a lot less than their state overall, so depending on the interpretation they're Republican leaning.
Democrats are more likely to win the House than the Senate next year, even though that's the reverse of who controls the chambers now. The presidency is our lowest hanging fruit though; if we lose that Republicans are guaranteed to have both chambers of Congress, and in that case we won't have to worry about having elections anymore.
I think we're going to win the elections in Ohio. What remains to be seen is whether the Republicans who run Ohio will follow the law the voters pass, or whether they'll do what Florida Republicans have done and find a way to ignore it.
But............but..................I thought that Republicans ASSURED us that they were NOT interested in jailing any women for having abortions.
(extreme sarcasm intended)
I know we on the left aren’t supposed to do this, but if I learned one thing from my far-right upbringing, it’s this: Whatever someone condemns the loudest, they or someone close to them is doing in private.
Like this Alabama asshole.
Over and over growing up, men in my church who ranted about the evils of lust had a porn habit. Or a mistress. Or both. Men who condemned homosexuality were outed as gay. Men who preached against addiction were addicts.
All to say it’s worth paying attention to what individuals on the right condemn the loudest. In many cases, they’re pretty much telling us how to topple them.
Thank you for your wisdom and insight 💪👏
I always assume it's projection and re: strategically listening to what they're saying the loudest, I just gave a talk giving this exact same advice! totally agree
Wrapped in a lot of complex psychology. We’re discussing that below.
^This.
It's always projection with these people
ALWAYS
Yes. And I think they project in an even broader sense. They seem to believe everyone else thinks and acts with the same moral standards they do (which is to say, very poor ones) and that's why they don't trust anybody and why they impute malicious motives to anyone with different ideas from them.
Much of this behavior is about protecting themselves or the person they love. They don’t trust themselves not to “yield to temptation,” especially since they know how much they struggle in private. To remove “temptation,” they try to police society by scrubbing it out everywhere.
Take Jerry Falwell Sr as an example. He hated homosexuality. Hated it. Made it his life-mission to eradicate it. And now we know why. His namesake is, at the very minimum, bisexual, something Daddy likely figured out decades ago.
Or look at Mike Pence. (Not that I can stand to. He gives me the creeps.) But his extreme stand on women reveals everything about his likely temptation: lust. He won’t be alone anywhere with a woman who’s not his wife, even in a public setting like a restaurant. I guarantee at some point he either made out with a woman other than his wife or desperately wanted to, and he still beats himself up about it. His obvious discomfort around women is very revealing, at least to me.
That's very good insight. By seeing the problem as the rest of the world, rather than themself, in my view they violate two of the most important values of Christianity: humility and truth. Not that I'm going to convince any of them. Are there any examples of women? Obviously women don't preach; they're expected to keep silent. But I wonder if it says anything about the women who are so prominent in fighting abortion, birth control, sex education, etc. Or is it just a man thing?
I also want to add more nuance to the psychology. These people are fueled by a fuck-ton of resentment. Think of the man living in the closet because he is repeatedly told his natural urges are sin. If he gives in, he will go to hell. Etc. So he suppressed and denies who he is. Then, he watches people just like him have the sanction and the freedom to live authentically, without shame or discrimination. Everywhere he looks, he sees happy, flourishing gay people, and it eats him up because he believes he will go to hell if he has that. So he tries to force these people back into the closet with him as an expression of his own seething resentment and misery.
All this stuff makes it very hard for me to think that there could be such a thing as a healthy version of religion or faith. But it's been pointed out to me that you can't get through to people if your premise is that their belief is the problem. And I guess there is a history of Christians supporting and being instrumental in social justice movements? I have a lot of difficulty with it, because to me the ability to play the 'god' card is so prone to abuse, that it more than cancels out any benefit from believing.
I'm still a person of faith. Because let's face it: whatever we believe about what comes after this life is a faith issue. We can argue whatever we want: pearly gates and streets of gold; 100 virgins awaiting the righteous jihad; another life and another life and another life; purgatory; nothing. But we don't know what happens. Personally, it helps me to believe there's something else, but I understand what faith is now. I can't force anyone else to believe it or follow it. I have no idea whether I'm right. I respect whatever anyone believes, because anyone could be right. Perhaps none of us are. I think it's a more human, compassionate response. That's why I constantly tell my parents to believe whatever speaks to them. I don't attack their faith or tell them not to attend that church or whatever. They have a right to believe what they believe. They don't have a right to force it on me or anyone else.
Plenty of women are anti-abortion because they had one or more and feel ashamed. Or look at how one of the Duggars had an abortion and called it a miscarriage. Growing up, women never discussed this stuff, at least not around me. I wish I could be more helpful here.
But generally, yes. Falwell Jr’s wife likes to have multiple sexual partners, all while punishing women at Liberty for all kinds of petty “infractions.” (Full disclosure: I attended Liberty freshman year. 10-10 do not recommend.)
As another example, one of the most prominent staff wives in my childhood church was a prolific shoplifter. She also had a torrid affair with the youth pastor. They were both arrested for trespassing when they were pulled from a car, naked, in another church parking lot late at night. That was the end of them both there, but they moved on to other ministries. I never trusted either of them growing up but couldn’t describe why.
I also think “The Eyes of Tammy Faye” does a really good job of portraying this dynamic.
Wow. I haven't seen The Eyes of Tammy Faye, but I get the gist. I suppose the question we all have is if girls grow up under a system that's highly oppressive to women, how much responsibility do they have for their actions as women. At what point is it their choice and to what extent are they a victim of abuse. But either way they're hurting others so they need to be stopped.
I’ll be blunt. Misery want’s company, in my opinion. One must promote the normalcy of the suppression especially if your the one being oppressed. I feel saddened and it’s tragic. It’s like the pregnant woman who has an abusive spouse and thinks “well he didn’t hit me in the abdomen “. Sorry for my rant. Hugs to all and appreciate this space.
Yes, a survival mechanism.
She is creepy. Yes, I'd be interested in any additional insights Andra has into the women who do this. I know she's said they think they're being virtuous and trying to follow god's plan for women.
People of Praise is a cult. Coney-Barrett has been affiliated with them for a long time. It’s hard for people who’ve never been in something like this to understand what it does to a person. Or how much work it takes to get out. How much a person has to want to leave. She has been conditioned to process a certain way for much of her life. She doesn’t question it. She believes it is “The Truth,” that she “was brought to the kingdom for such a time as this.” She doesn’t think about what her rulings do to those at the other end of them. In her mind, people should have consequences for “sin,” and maybe those consequences will turn some of them to God and “The Truth.” To me, she’s a puppet. I can’t stand her.
And all that SCOTUS needed for standing in the web designer case is the theoretical possibility of "harm" from serving a customer with whom your religious beliefs differ.
To be fair we don't know how scotus would rule on pretty much anything that's going on right now. Conservatives think because they got Dobbs they can get anything they want from this court, but the median justice is still Kavanaugh; it's not like it's Clarence Thomas. Having to put your hope in Brett Kavanaugh to stop things from getting worse is the universe's idea of a sick joke, but I still wouldn't dismiss it entirely 🤷 (but yes, we must always be prepared for the worst).
I have zero hope in SCOTUS. Just pointing out a double standard.
Yes. I was just making the distinction between the different courts, with respect to a double standard.
jfc
That is correct. That’s what they asked Amanda Zureski (sp.), who is possibly now infertile because of our state’s bans.
These people are very Orwellian, or whatever the best term for it is.
Fucking fuckers who are completely fucked up. Sigh. It felt good to type that.
Commenting to say I love this question, Waverly. I'd love to get a lawyer's take.
this is a great question, and I wonder if any legal orgs are thinking about it...
Red state policies are already doing this, but if it happens slowly enough the voters are like frogs being boiled who don't jump out of the pot. Red state voters already have a chip on their shoulder about everything in this country, so they can probably find a way to blame 'liberals' and 'elites' for their doctor shortage.
Only a doctor could tell you what it would take for her to be brave about breaking the law. As more bans come into effect the situation is only going to get worse.