“ Polish scientists claim they’ve devised laboratory methods to detect mifepristone and misoprostol in biological specimens, and a spokeswoman for the regional prosecutor’s office in Wroclaw confirmed that these tests have been used in Poland to investigate pregnancy outcomes. “
I saw that. This is the next step toward criminalizing miscarriage. I see the day coming where every miscarriage will trigger a criminal investigation with a woman's entire life combed through for any excuse to punish her for not doing pregnancy perfectly.
Good grief. That's draconian. I wonder what the standard deviation for error is or do they even care? Every medical test I've ever been given has an error rate.
Thank you so much for all you do! I’m disappointed in The NY Times for such an expansive article about all the ballot initiatives and over looking the one in their own backyard as we work towards passing the equal rights amendment to the NY constitution. Protecting not only women and pregnancy and pregnancy outcomes, but all gender identities and expressions, ages, ability, sexual orientation, country of origin and more I know I’m forgetting. Our measures take years to get to the ballot! NY is safe, now but we are one governor away like so many states and our constitution needs to protect all of us. (Race and religion are currently protected )
“ In practice, the two have been combined into a single form, accessible only through a state website, that patients must sign within a specific time frame (no more than two weeks, but no less than 24 hours, before their appointment), print, and bring to their appointment.”
So if you don’t have internet access, or don’t have a printer, you’re out of luck?
Exactly. Disadvantaged people are supposed to be able to use the public library for that, but if everyone had to do that we'd change the system. It's just like not having a car. We just assume a basic level of material wealth for interacting with the rest of the world, and if you don't have that you're out of luck. It's part of why the poor stay poor, and it's what we do to keep them that way :(
Exactly. I don’t drive - that didn’t really limit me much when I lived where public transportation as not only available, but something everyone, not just the poor, used routinely. But in most of the country, it’s a really huge obstacle not to drive and own a car.
Thank you for the work you continue to do to keep us informed. The fact that the extremists are now “glorifying” maternal death is disgusting but not surprising. I have come to realize that the reason these particular people are so against allowing women the right to choose is because the male leaders resent that women are the limiting factor in whether or not they can have sons. Allowing that power to be in the hands of another, never mind that the other is a lowly female, really twists their knickers. This also explains why there have never been monuments to the women who have died trying to bring life and why they won’t pay the $15,000 in taxpayer funds to track their sacrifice. Honor a woman’s sacrifice? No. Resent the hell out of it. Absolutely. They won’t give a penny to preventing those deaths. Every time someone brings up how “rare” these deaths are, I bring up how rare police deaths are and yet they finance training, equipment and monuments to the fallen. Why haven’t other states invested in procedures like California’s where the maternal mortality rate is the lowest in the nation? Because women are not a priority to them. I was told that women die because of their own faults like being too fat or too old. It’s disgusting. I always point to California and ask, “So women in California don’t have diabetes or aren’t old?” How does that work exactly?
I’m old - I turned 65 a few days ago. But for the last 50+ years, in the back of my head has always been this concept (and forgive, please, the generalizations):
We live in a patriarchy because men are jealous that women control reproduction. They cannot have children in a free society without the willing cooperation of women. Everything from the fetishization of virginity, to laws regulating marriage, the punishments for women found to have committed adultery, the customs in some countries about giving children their father’s last name, inheritance laws, coverture, the until very recent laws against contraception, laws banning abortion, the lack of action on maternal mortality, the laws which allowed firing married/pregnant workers, limiting women’s right to employment, the lack of access to credit, the legal system equating women with children, the allowance of marital rape, and the lack of seriousness with which the system deals with rape in general and domestic violence, etc., etc, etc…
It all stems from the same source. Men’s desire to take away from women their inherent right to control human reproduction. Whether that right stems from the simple biological evolution of human beings, or whether some deity “created” or “designed” the species this way, the bottom line is without the oppression of women, men have no control over if, when, or with whom they reproduce. And they are, on some primal level, deeply angry about that.
Even today, they’re still trying to convince women that if we step out of line, if we sleep with “too many” men, or if we aren’t docile enough and we don’t let men lead, etc., we will “end up as lonely, bitter cat ladies who smell like urine.” The idea that we don’t need men to live a full life is horrifying to them. We can have a career, earn enough money to establish a comfortable lifestyle, buy our own homes..we are no longer dependent of “having a man” for survival. They try to convince themselves - and everyone else - that single women - and especially single mothers (who they describe as used goods), are all both miserably unhappy, and have traded having a husband for the state supporting us all financially. (The fact that the majority of us are self supporting never penetrates - they don’t believe it, because they don’t want to.)
There’s no surprise to me that once women were able to be truly independent of men, they started taking away our rights. Abortion, contraception - and the step after that is no-fault divorce, to keep women trapped into marriage and child bearing. The far right has also been saying for at least a decade that the biggest mistake the country has ever made was allowing women to vote.
It’s all because women can make new humans, they cannot, and that enrages them.
Oh, and a side note - if a woman chooses a small furry companion who shits in a box over being with a man, that says a lot more about men than it does about her.
Yes, yes, yes, so many yesses! I'm sure my own point of view took many years and many influences to form, but, I've probably always sort of known women are better. And I know that's not what you were saying, but it's easier for me to state my position that way - women are better, overall. (We men have some specific talents and uses, but also so many areas in which we can't compete.) So why do we get angry about it and fight it? Why can't we just accept that someone is better, and be thankful that most of them don't hate us even when we act like dicks? Why can't we be humble? How about trying being in awe of the other and trying to make yourself useful to her? At some level I don't get it.
If I wanted to drone on I'd raise the question of whether the reason men aren't like that has something to do with evolutionary fitness, and it's connected to traits we need to biologically survive (or at least did before the advent of civilization) but it's best to leave it. I see no reason we can't train men to overcome our worst impulses, whatever challenges they may be.
As you noted, I’m not suggesting that men are better than women.
But I think we are more secure in ourselves *as* women than a lot of men are secure in themselves as men, if that makes sense. Men are enculturated to be very hierarchical in relation to one another. “Winning,” and stacking themselves up against other men is how they establish their manhood to themselves.
I’m not saying women aren’t competitive, but competition isn’t how we establish our identity as women. We don’t have a female correlate to the term “male ego.” There’s this sense that the worst thing you can do to a man is to emasculate him - to damage his sense of himself as a man. There isn’t a word for damaging a woman’s sense of herself as a woman, because it’s inherent. It isn’t artificially defined by behavior.
I have a hunch that the reason for this has something to do with the fact (and of course, this is very broad generalization-it’s true of women in general, but not necessarily true of *every* woman) that our womanhood is visible because of our reproductive capabilities. We bleed, we gestate, we feed our young by making food from our own bodies for them. Men don’t have the same kind of physical manifestation of their identity as men.
I guess I do have to wonder how much of male competition is evolutionary. I think in most species the female is the more selective. And she'd have to be. Males can spread their DNA with very little cost, but females can only have so many pregnancies, so many young, so it's mathematically more important that their offspring are fathered by a genetically fit male. Hence the male birds being the showy ones, and all the other stuff males do to demonstrate evolutionary fitness.
The thing is, if the male competitive behavior is off-putting to women, then it's completely counterproductive! I think our biology does not change as fast as our culture, our knowledge, our civilization. So it's something to work on.
The other point about evolution is that the male would evolve to have a higher sex drive, and I think sometimes that's understated because maybe it's a bit taboo. But consider how dangerous so many male animals are during mating season, and then remember that humans are animals, and it's always mating season.
I bring it up because it's another hypothesis I have for misogyny. If you take violence and coercion off the table (which shamefully we don't), women have some power advantage in mating relationships with men. There's a classic episode of Everybody Loves Raymond about this (although the whole show is kind of about that! :) As a man, if you're heterosexual, you have to somehow make peace with that. And perhaps that's a source of resentment for men.
Similarly, if men perceive that they have to compete so hard or try so hard to win a woman's attention and affection, which we would expect from evolution, some may resent that rather than seeing it as part of the grand beautiful plan for life and for the universe.
It seems to me that men would do better to accept these natural realities, than to be upset. One thing that would give me pause would be if there was evidence that "nice guys finish last", that because women seek a fit mate that jerks somehow have an advantage. However I suspect that's more of a misogynistic stereotype than anything. It's hard for me to imagine or accept that objectively bad men somehow make better mates and biological fathers. But then I don't have sexual attraction to men so I can't really say.
The other thing is that when you said women are more secure, I thought, well yes you would have to be. It's necessary for your survival in a world that remains hostile and dangerous for women. Perhaps more hardship is what is necessary for men, as it's probably still the best way to develop character, and there just aren't good shortcuts.
Almost. Again, wildly generalizing here. Women are more secure in their sense of womanhood, of being women. We don’t doubt that. It’s not only inherent, it’s confirmed by menstruation, childbearing, and nursing. It’s a part of our body. Men measure their manhood against other men. It’s not that women are more secure as *people,* we are more secure about our woman-ness than men are about their man-ness.
Yes, the idea that women select bad boys is a myth - until you cross that with toxic masculinity. Some women, usually when quite young, choose a bad boy as a boyfriend, learn that’s a mistake, and choose a hopefully permanent mate better.
If you buy into the notion that the right wing manosphere promotes, then that women has given her most important attribute to the bad boy - her virginity, and her later selection of a suitable mate means she’s cheating that mate, because she “made him work for” (meaning relationship & marriage) what she “gave the bad boy for free.” It’s total bullspit if you think of women as people, and it’s no different than men not marrying the first woman they sleep with.
My personal experience, and that of my women friends, is that it’s cultural garbage that men have stronger sex drives than women. Mine was stronger than that of any of them men I’ve been involved with. Historically, it’s really a new idea that women’s sex drives are weaker. Look at all the mythology dealing with women’s evil sexuality. Churches regularly preached about the dangers of women’s unbound sexuality. It wasn’t really until the 19th Century that the idea that women weren’t as sexual came into being. Also consider - until very recently, women didn’t have reliable contraception. Not wanting to get pregnant is a powerful motivation to restrain your sex drive.
There was a study done that claimed to prove men had stronger sex drives, because women were not as likely to have one night stands. Now, that’s a bs concept in the first place, because not wanting one night stands says zip about inherent sex drive. For some women, sex with men is, let’s say, less successful with a stranger than with a man who cares about her pleasure. In other words, women were turning down one night stands because they thought the sex would be lousy.
You’re right about culture changing faster than biology. I think, though, that the “men need to compete with other men for women” is more bs. It entirely overlooks what the woman wants. I don’t care that man A can beat up man B. I don’t care if man B out earns man B. I don’t care if either of them are taller, stronger, or richer than man C. That’s not how women today select mates. The competition between men is about *them,* not about women.
We aren’t out on the savannah anymore, and men don’t get to beat up another guy and drag me into their cave by the hair because he *won.* I don’t need a man to protect me from wild animals. I don’t need a man to provide for me, I’m capable of providing for myself. If I’m in a relationship it’s not because the man out competed some other man, it’s because I *choose* to be with a man I feel I’m most compatible with, and who I think will be an equal partner for me. Some men haven’t figured this out yet.
A lot of good points. Honestly I try to figure out how to answer the question, "wtf is wrong with men?" I go to the evolutionary biology and the testosterone a lot because I always remember that civilization is only a few thousand years old, but as living creatures we're much much older than that. But then it would have to be backed up by data or it would be junk science. I just wonder whether our instincts align with what makes sense in the modern world. Either way though the goal is to overcome bad instincts. I don't really know what the purpose of 'manhood' is, and maybe most other men don't either, so what the heck is going on there. I always think about other species too, when I'm thinking about the more primitive parts of the brain.
It does seem to me that feminism can only go so far without investigating what's going on with men. We can describe and analyze how systems of power work to disadvantage women, and we might also explain why women would cooperate with and even defend patriarchy. But I think it's important to have at least some theory of men, because while it may be true to say men do bad things because they can, it also seems to me that's too simple of an answer for figuring out how to change things.
I agree completely with this. I also have come to realize that I developed my sense of whom I would like to spend my life with by observing my parents' marriage (a really excellent union for which I am so grateful) and reading romance novels. Some people will roll their eyes at this, but I would read these novels and learn which relationships seemed solid to me and what kinds of "hero" I found compatible. Much as young men would read sports or war stories to decide what kind of "hero" they admired and wanted to emulate. I have often wondered if there shouldn't be novels about male/female relationships for young men and wouldn't that help? I don't know. A lot of young men today seem so lost regarding what a healthy relationship looks like. Although, I have met some really excellent young men, also.
Exactly. If men could get pregnant this would be the only issue anybody in the country would care about. Except of course that if men could get pregnant no one would ever so much as even think about legislating anything related to reproductive health care. The misogyny feeds on itself and how do you break the cycle. It's maddening.
This newsletter is one of the only truths we have, and it's getting scarier and scarier. Today's top hits for me:
--What are "severe" fetal anomalies? Who gets to define those?
--I have indeed talked to a guy at a get together who asserted the same "I'd hope the woman would do the right thing" BS about dangers to her during pregnancy. I was aghast. Stunned in silence. They exist. These people exist. And this was in a pretty sophisticated spot in NJ.
--10.2 billion dollars on ad spending when the planet is in crisis and people are either being burned alive or drowned from climate disasters. And we're fighting internally over something we tried to settle decades ago (minus the ERA, where is that?) - that women are equal and have autonomy over their own lives! All this money spent and half these candidates aren't worth a dime !
--“I just want other women to know that if they go through something like this, they’re not alone and it’s not their fault." (OK resident Statton, who was left to deteriorate in a hospital parking lot). Deep sigh... She's a saint, but I'd have said "I just want other women to know that if they vote Republican, and if they're Republican, they're voting against themselves as a whole human being. They're voting for their subjugation, physically, emotionally, socially-- in every way."
--Lastly, defining personhood at fertilization. That's what they want. That's the endgame. And in the Constitution. Zygotes with due process rights, fetal lawyers.
The danger to us should Trump win reelection is profound.
One thing that's frustrating is that to those of us here, it's obvious that this is the most important issue, not only for its own sake but because the implications are so deep for everything else in our society and civilization. But we're unlikely to get everyone who agrees with us on reproductive rights to be a single issue voter. And since Republican politicians have so far remained united, our only hope is with Democratic party victories. That means that our fate is subject to what voters think about everything else related to Democrats, from (their perceptions of) Joe Biden's mental fitness to whether they think California is well governed. Abortion is our best issue, and that can lift everything else up, but everything else can also pull us down. I think the choice is obvious, but if it really were obvious to everyone else then we wouldn't be here at all.
So, will the KY legislature go after everyone born in the state of Kentucky who ever had a tubal ligation or vasectomy and no longer lives in the state of Kentucky? Including the asshats in congress?
The simple answer for the BS that Tumorville is doing is to start closing military bases in red states and moving those capabilities to blue states. Tommy will be happy because the military won't have to reimburse travel for abortion. Start with bases in Alabama.
Clicking through to that poll from The Hill, it looks as though young men were pretty evenly divided, which would definitely be an improvement over older generations of men. A problem with men, especially white men, is they can treat politics as abstract and ideological, an intellectual exercise, because their privilege means they're rarely the ones affected by the policies. When all the harms are hypothetical you don't distinguish between real and imagined dangers, and you can miss what's right in front of you in favor of what you tell yourself is some higher principle.
I’ve seen so many men tell women they’re too emotional about topics like abortion without having done any self-reflection into why it isn’t an emotional topic for them.
I’m not feeling well, so I’m not sure I’ll be able to express this clearly, and I’m going to use <gasp> generalizations. It often seems to me that white men in particular think they are the only people capable of logic, the only ones whose opinions should really count, because they’re the only truly objective people.
Abortion, equal pay, the distribution of labor (including emotional labor) in the home, government funded childcare, domestic violence, affirmative action, systemic racism and sexism - name a topic the weight of which doesn’t fall on white men, and they’ll tell you they’re more objective. They extrapolate out from that to decree that this is an inherent trait that they have and others don’t.
Then when an issue comes up that *does* impact them, they assume they’re being objective and logical about that, too - but just look at the reaction to any gun control measures, for example. “The government is coming for your guns! They’re going to take them all away and leave you defenseless!” Tell me *that* isn’t an emotionally based reaction. “Oh, no, it’s just objective logic. If we have to register our guns, or have background checks, that leads to government confiscation. It’s just logic. We won’t have a country anymore.”
Yes. I think it's even worse when you ask them to interact with women without harassing them. "Well no man is going to be able to talk to any woman anymore!" Seriously? That childish response is indicative of someone whom you should NOT listen to on the issue. But yes so many men it seems have never been forced to grow out of that stage. It ought to be embarrassing.
I wasn't even necessarily thinking of objectivity here, but you're absolutely right and I guess it's related. We remember when the media thought that reporters who had ever been harassed or assaulted should not cover stories related to those topics, because they couldn't be objective. So of course white men end up being the only ones who are 'objective'. Nice trick by those who are in power. (They never thought to say anyone who had been a harasser or assailant or had watched their buddies do it without saying anything couldn't be objective.)
Yeah what I was thinking of is privilege, and here it's the privilege of being seen as objective when everyone else is seen to have a point of view. Sidetrack, but what kind of motivated me is this: Nate Silver is my trusted numbers guy, and I think his political views match up fairly well with mine, and he's got a substack and he recently started taking paid subscriptions while he's not under contract with anyone. Reading the comments section on his post the other day immediately makes me aware of being in a different world. You can tell there's a plethora of white guys, and so many of them seem to think of the issues in abstract philosophical ways, about values and ideas, rather than looking at who is this policy actively hurting right now and what is the harm being done. Men, especially white men, have the luxury of looking at issues that way because they're not really personally that badly affected by them one way or the other - because of course if they were, those things wouldn't BE "issues", it would be a consensus that was obvious to everyone! Anyway I get the sense that this is where the "debate me" schtick comes from. People should not have to debate their humanity; these guys wouldn't and it would never even occur to them that's something that's even conceivable, even as they do it to everybody else. Fucking privilege, man.
I'm rambling but you made the exact same point when you said that the only things which are considered 'issues' up for discussion are things that don't affect white men. White man is the default human, so he's objective and everyone else is an 'other' with a point of view.
If I wanted to be optimistic I'd say maybe we're finally starting to scratch the surface of changing that, and that's why they've gone nuts and the backlash is so incredibly fierce. They're getting just a little taste of how everyone else lives, and they have no experience of it or tolerance for it!
I should edit this shorter but oh well :) It really makes me grateful for the community here, where most are women and you don't do things that way. I always try to be aware and hopefully any Y-chromosome habits I have don't come across and annoy too much! Even so women are patient and tolerant and I'm very thankful for that.
Regarding the Vox piece, the concern is that if laws are enforced exclusively by citizen bounty hunters, their constitutionality can't be challenged pre-enforcement, because of the court's decision in Jackson which let the Texas law slide. It's not completely clear to me what the court really meant by that, considering that I think they were quite aware at that point that they were going to overturn Roe, but there's an easy way to find out. A blue state needs to pass a law banning guns but only enforceable by private bounty hunters. Presumably the court would not take a pass on that. And then they would have to indicate in what circumstances such laws could indeed be preemptively challenged, and that would be precedent for similarly structured laws regarding travel, speech, etc. My point is that if the other side wants to fucking play games, then let's step up and play the fucking game.
Yes, I remember reading that. But I haven't heard anything since. I also remember that others in California were against the idea, because they knew it was a stunt and that they would lose. To be fair, one has to consider the political implications of that kind of legislating, but I would think there are enough safe Democrats in California to do it. -Someone- has to fight back. Honestly the other side uses lots of clever devious tactics, and idk whether our side thinks we're too good for that, or that we'll lose support if we act like that too, but this is a war, and we're getting killed out here. -Something- has to change. We have to find ways to make them choose between either saying and doing things they don't want to, or retreating. Their behavior has to have consequences.
It's not always an easy call. But if the other side is willing to get their hands dirty AND that gives them an advantage, we do have to have a strategy for that.
I was thinking of malpractice; this isn’t really about malpractice but it’s nearly impossible to bring a malpractice case unless someone has died and I thought that’s what you were referring to. As far as civl cases, the only practical information I have is that even if you have been harmed and/or defrauded and it’s proven in court, good luck even getting legal costs covered let alone losses, regardless of amount. Even if you get an award, it may be up to you to recover the award. I don’t know what the answer is, but I’m so glad people are here discussing. I am no legal expert and I completely agree that property loss and injury count!
It seems like it always has to be class action. I suppose it's a thorny problem because if it's too easy to be successful suing other people then the bad ones take advantage of it (i.e. people who interact with the world the way Donald Trump does). On the other hand the justice system is supposed to deliver exactly that, justice, and it's not supposed to be based on how many resources you have available to put into it.
Yes, and even class action is so hard and frequently provides little for those who are harmed. There are great attorneys working hard to do good, but I think we have swung away from justice in general. It seems like the tales of abuse of the system and huge awards were mythology used to push back against individual human rights and protections and deregulate the system.
As always, you're the absolute best! Thank you for your work. As a MO resident, I've been calling, emailing daily. It will probably do nothing, but it makes me feel like I've done something this week. The doom I feel is unmatched. I lost pregnancies at 16 and 22 wks. I now have 2 live children but, I almost died giving birth to my 2nd (as did he) I was always a c section due to my multiple spinal surgeries and loads of metal. Even then, I almost died. We work at catholic hospital (I'm out for the moment to be with my youngest, my husband is still there) and they would not tie my tubes EVEN THOUGH I would pay out of pocket 5000 bucks because the priest board denied it. I'm 42. Had my kids in my 30s. I'm now 12 surgeries deep, fresh hip replacement and all. Even then, it was a hard no. We had to wait for my d&e even though my babies had no heartbeat due to how far along I was and that was 10 yrs ago! I'm sorry for rambling, my grammar, etc. I just want to say you make a difference in my day. Your words bring fire and a strange comfort to know I'm not alone in my fear, to know I'm not "over reacting" or being "alarmist " . I was a clinic escort in college. I'm originally from WV. I worked with them until I moved to MO. Never stop doing what you do. You're a Rockstar and I'm just thankful for you.
That is a lot of surgeries. I hope your health can be better going forward. I wish we could force the Catholic hospitals to actually provide health care. We all hope Missouri can get reproductive rights on the ballot and pass it, and then it's just a matter of whether the Republicans who run the state will follow its constitution.
Scapegoating, victim-blaming, dehumanizing. One of the top comments today “these people exist”. Indeed, there’s an increasing incidence of personality disorders, including antisocial (some people refer to this as psychopathy or sociopathy). It’s real, and exists in disturbing numbers.
One of our pro-life legislators was kicked out of a theatre recently, partly for refusing to stop vaping. She was sitting near a pregnant woman who asked her to stop.
I had a screw pierce my spinal column after a spinal fusion. The doc didn't believe my pain and I went a year like that. Lost feeling everywhere in my legs, hands, etc. We had read that screws can back out In active ,young people soo I thought it was a fluke and he did a 2nd surgery. It didn't go well. Thankfully, it was fixed but now I'm part robot . I feel good considering! Thankful for therapy, PT, medication and the will to keep on keeping on! 💜💜
Regarding the paragraph quoted from a campaign website, voters don't seem to be buying the 15-week bans (right?), which is good. I wonder whether that's because they understand that those policies aren't reasonable, or because they don't trust that those are the policies Republicans would actually implement. It's always important to know what voters are thinking, not just which way they're leaning.
This is terrifying.
“ Polish scientists claim they’ve devised laboratory methods to detect mifepristone and misoprostol in biological specimens, and a spokeswoman for the regional prosecutor’s office in Wroclaw confirmed that these tests have been used in Poland to investigate pregnancy outcomes. “
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/14/opinion/abortion-pills-testing-poland.html?unlocked_article_code=732HfTrHKHzUz2DzEQ3blSB9d_iOVophRnW5MyFLRLAKt7iE9HsVreh-p5UaZw-vyrpZnvkf_1BYLo6SHTHb0WAOR9yva8a-URKi__YnhZHADJFG6Xi5UhhN2I0uekTONEFdrTv_4EGn8ZSjNab5GZlcVkXa-VVVmuMcKN9nDcOyHuQdaEBpnELNN1H0RrUbUP3gfIHQHMNXlJ9t5alD3FqgjPpVXueyfgNlti8YSifNp011JIzH4iVcVcISDeNoDUuui8gnrp96s395brJ4mjjDlOfRVI_8woOHrCxbXSLosPocyQozc4DLAyF9YY1UjHS3fFlJLzYuwJ-LWfs4NJclCteUcwsm&smid=url-share
I saw that. This is the next step toward criminalizing miscarriage. I see the day coming where every miscarriage will trigger a criminal investigation with a woman's entire life combed through for any excuse to punish her for not doing pregnancy perfectly.
Good grief. That's draconian. I wonder what the standard deviation for error is or do they even care? Every medical test I've ever been given has an error rate.
Thank you so much for all you do! I’m disappointed in The NY Times for such an expansive article about all the ballot initiatives and over looking the one in their own backyard as we work towards passing the equal rights amendment to the NY constitution. Protecting not only women and pregnancy and pregnancy outcomes, but all gender identities and expressions, ages, ability, sexual orientation, country of origin and more I know I’m forgetting. Our measures take years to get to the ballot! NY is safe, now but we are one governor away like so many states and our constitution needs to protect all of us. (Race and religion are currently protected )
Wait, what?
“ In practice, the two have been combined into a single form, accessible only through a state website, that patients must sign within a specific time frame (no more than two weeks, but no less than 24 hours, before their appointment), print, and bring to their appointment.”
So if you don’t have internet access, or don’t have a printer, you’re out of luck?
WTF?!?
Exactly. Disadvantaged people are supposed to be able to use the public library for that, but if everyone had to do that we'd change the system. It's just like not having a car. We just assume a basic level of material wealth for interacting with the rest of the world, and if you don't have that you're out of luck. It's part of why the poor stay poor, and it's what we do to keep them that way :(
Exactly. I don’t drive - that didn’t really limit me much when I lived where public transportation as not only available, but something everyone, not just the poor, used routinely. But in most of the country, it’s a really huge obstacle not to drive and own a car.
Thank you for sharing. Gut-wrenching.
Thank you for the work you continue to do to keep us informed. The fact that the extremists are now “glorifying” maternal death is disgusting but not surprising. I have come to realize that the reason these particular people are so against allowing women the right to choose is because the male leaders resent that women are the limiting factor in whether or not they can have sons. Allowing that power to be in the hands of another, never mind that the other is a lowly female, really twists their knickers. This also explains why there have never been monuments to the women who have died trying to bring life and why they won’t pay the $15,000 in taxpayer funds to track their sacrifice. Honor a woman’s sacrifice? No. Resent the hell out of it. Absolutely. They won’t give a penny to preventing those deaths. Every time someone brings up how “rare” these deaths are, I bring up how rare police deaths are and yet they finance training, equipment and monuments to the fallen. Why haven’t other states invested in procedures like California’s where the maternal mortality rate is the lowest in the nation? Because women are not a priority to them. I was told that women die because of their own faults like being too fat or too old. It’s disgusting. I always point to California and ask, “So women in California don’t have diabetes or aren’t old?” How does that work exactly?
Julie,
I’m old - I turned 65 a few days ago. But for the last 50+ years, in the back of my head has always been this concept (and forgive, please, the generalizations):
We live in a patriarchy because men are jealous that women control reproduction. They cannot have children in a free society without the willing cooperation of women. Everything from the fetishization of virginity, to laws regulating marriage, the punishments for women found to have committed adultery, the customs in some countries about giving children their father’s last name, inheritance laws, coverture, the until very recent laws against contraception, laws banning abortion, the lack of action on maternal mortality, the laws which allowed firing married/pregnant workers, limiting women’s right to employment, the lack of access to credit, the legal system equating women with children, the allowance of marital rape, and the lack of seriousness with which the system deals with rape in general and domestic violence, etc., etc, etc…
It all stems from the same source. Men’s desire to take away from women their inherent right to control human reproduction. Whether that right stems from the simple biological evolution of human beings, or whether some deity “created” or “designed” the species this way, the bottom line is without the oppression of women, men have no control over if, when, or with whom they reproduce. And they are, on some primal level, deeply angry about that.
Even today, they’re still trying to convince women that if we step out of line, if we sleep with “too many” men, or if we aren’t docile enough and we don’t let men lead, etc., we will “end up as lonely, bitter cat ladies who smell like urine.” The idea that we don’t need men to live a full life is horrifying to them. We can have a career, earn enough money to establish a comfortable lifestyle, buy our own homes..we are no longer dependent of “having a man” for survival. They try to convince themselves - and everyone else - that single women - and especially single mothers (who they describe as used goods), are all both miserably unhappy, and have traded having a husband for the state supporting us all financially. (The fact that the majority of us are self supporting never penetrates - they don’t believe it, because they don’t want to.)
There’s no surprise to me that once women were able to be truly independent of men, they started taking away our rights. Abortion, contraception - and the step after that is no-fault divorce, to keep women trapped into marriage and child bearing. The far right has also been saying for at least a decade that the biggest mistake the country has ever made was allowing women to vote.
It’s all because women can make new humans, they cannot, and that enrages them.
Oh, and a side note - if a woman chooses a small furry companion who shits in a box over being with a man, that says a lot more about men than it does about her.
65 is not old !
Thank you. It feels old, some days!
Yes, yes, yes, so many yesses! I'm sure my own point of view took many years and many influences to form, but, I've probably always sort of known women are better. And I know that's not what you were saying, but it's easier for me to state my position that way - women are better, overall. (We men have some specific talents and uses, but also so many areas in which we can't compete.) So why do we get angry about it and fight it? Why can't we just accept that someone is better, and be thankful that most of them don't hate us even when we act like dicks? Why can't we be humble? How about trying being in awe of the other and trying to make yourself useful to her? At some level I don't get it.
If I wanted to drone on I'd raise the question of whether the reason men aren't like that has something to do with evolutionary fitness, and it's connected to traits we need to biologically survive (or at least did before the advent of civilization) but it's best to leave it. I see no reason we can't train men to overcome our worst impulses, whatever challenges they may be.
As you noted, I’m not suggesting that men are better than women.
But I think we are more secure in ourselves *as* women than a lot of men are secure in themselves as men, if that makes sense. Men are enculturated to be very hierarchical in relation to one another. “Winning,” and stacking themselves up against other men is how they establish their manhood to themselves.
I’m not saying women aren’t competitive, but competition isn’t how we establish our identity as women. We don’t have a female correlate to the term “male ego.” There’s this sense that the worst thing you can do to a man is to emasculate him - to damage his sense of himself as a man. There isn’t a word for damaging a woman’s sense of herself as a woman, because it’s inherent. It isn’t artificially defined by behavior.
I have a hunch that the reason for this has something to do with the fact (and of course, this is very broad generalization-it’s true of women in general, but not necessarily true of *every* woman) that our womanhood is visible because of our reproductive capabilities. We bleed, we gestate, we feed our young by making food from our own bodies for them. Men don’t have the same kind of physical manifestation of their identity as men.
I guess I do have to wonder how much of male competition is evolutionary. I think in most species the female is the more selective. And she'd have to be. Males can spread their DNA with very little cost, but females can only have so many pregnancies, so many young, so it's mathematically more important that their offspring are fathered by a genetically fit male. Hence the male birds being the showy ones, and all the other stuff males do to demonstrate evolutionary fitness.
The thing is, if the male competitive behavior is off-putting to women, then it's completely counterproductive! I think our biology does not change as fast as our culture, our knowledge, our civilization. So it's something to work on.
The other point about evolution is that the male would evolve to have a higher sex drive, and I think sometimes that's understated because maybe it's a bit taboo. But consider how dangerous so many male animals are during mating season, and then remember that humans are animals, and it's always mating season.
I bring it up because it's another hypothesis I have for misogyny. If you take violence and coercion off the table (which shamefully we don't), women have some power advantage in mating relationships with men. There's a classic episode of Everybody Loves Raymond about this (although the whole show is kind of about that! :) As a man, if you're heterosexual, you have to somehow make peace with that. And perhaps that's a source of resentment for men.
Similarly, if men perceive that they have to compete so hard or try so hard to win a woman's attention and affection, which we would expect from evolution, some may resent that rather than seeing it as part of the grand beautiful plan for life and for the universe.
It seems to me that men would do better to accept these natural realities, than to be upset. One thing that would give me pause would be if there was evidence that "nice guys finish last", that because women seek a fit mate that jerks somehow have an advantage. However I suspect that's more of a misogynistic stereotype than anything. It's hard for me to imagine or accept that objectively bad men somehow make better mates and biological fathers. But then I don't have sexual attraction to men so I can't really say.
The other thing is that when you said women are more secure, I thought, well yes you would have to be. It's necessary for your survival in a world that remains hostile and dangerous for women. Perhaps more hardship is what is necessary for men, as it's probably still the best way to develop character, and there just aren't good shortcuts.
Almost. Again, wildly generalizing here. Women are more secure in their sense of womanhood, of being women. We don’t doubt that. It’s not only inherent, it’s confirmed by menstruation, childbearing, and nursing. It’s a part of our body. Men measure their manhood against other men. It’s not that women are more secure as *people,* we are more secure about our woman-ness than men are about their man-ness.
Yes, the idea that women select bad boys is a myth - until you cross that with toxic masculinity. Some women, usually when quite young, choose a bad boy as a boyfriend, learn that’s a mistake, and choose a hopefully permanent mate better.
If you buy into the notion that the right wing manosphere promotes, then that women has given her most important attribute to the bad boy - her virginity, and her later selection of a suitable mate means she’s cheating that mate, because she “made him work for” (meaning relationship & marriage) what she “gave the bad boy for free.” It’s total bullspit if you think of women as people, and it’s no different than men not marrying the first woman they sleep with.
My personal experience, and that of my women friends, is that it’s cultural garbage that men have stronger sex drives than women. Mine was stronger than that of any of them men I’ve been involved with. Historically, it’s really a new idea that women’s sex drives are weaker. Look at all the mythology dealing with women’s evil sexuality. Churches regularly preached about the dangers of women’s unbound sexuality. It wasn’t really until the 19th Century that the idea that women weren’t as sexual came into being. Also consider - until very recently, women didn’t have reliable contraception. Not wanting to get pregnant is a powerful motivation to restrain your sex drive.
There was a study done that claimed to prove men had stronger sex drives, because women were not as likely to have one night stands. Now, that’s a bs concept in the first place, because not wanting one night stands says zip about inherent sex drive. For some women, sex with men is, let’s say, less successful with a stranger than with a man who cares about her pleasure. In other words, women were turning down one night stands because they thought the sex would be lousy.
You’re right about culture changing faster than biology. I think, though, that the “men need to compete with other men for women” is more bs. It entirely overlooks what the woman wants. I don’t care that man A can beat up man B. I don’t care if man B out earns man B. I don’t care if either of them are taller, stronger, or richer than man C. That’s not how women today select mates. The competition between men is about *them,* not about women.
We aren’t out on the savannah anymore, and men don’t get to beat up another guy and drag me into their cave by the hair because he *won.* I don’t need a man to protect me from wild animals. I don’t need a man to provide for me, I’m capable of providing for myself. If I’m in a relationship it’s not because the man out competed some other man, it’s because I *choose* to be with a man I feel I’m most compatible with, and who I think will be an equal partner for me. Some men haven’t figured this out yet.
A lot of good points. Honestly I try to figure out how to answer the question, "wtf is wrong with men?" I go to the evolutionary biology and the testosterone a lot because I always remember that civilization is only a few thousand years old, but as living creatures we're much much older than that. But then it would have to be backed up by data or it would be junk science. I just wonder whether our instincts align with what makes sense in the modern world. Either way though the goal is to overcome bad instincts. I don't really know what the purpose of 'manhood' is, and maybe most other men don't either, so what the heck is going on there. I always think about other species too, when I'm thinking about the more primitive parts of the brain.
It does seem to me that feminism can only go so far without investigating what's going on with men. We can describe and analyze how systems of power work to disadvantage women, and we might also explain why women would cooperate with and even defend patriarchy. But I think it's important to have at least some theory of men, because while it may be true to say men do bad things because they can, it also seems to me that's too simple of an answer for figuring out how to change things.
I agree completely with this. I also have come to realize that I developed my sense of whom I would like to spend my life with by observing my parents' marriage (a really excellent union for which I am so grateful) and reading romance novels. Some people will roll their eyes at this, but I would read these novels and learn which relationships seemed solid to me and what kinds of "hero" I found compatible. Much as young men would read sports or war stories to decide what kind of "hero" they admired and wanted to emulate. I have often wondered if there shouldn't be novels about male/female relationships for young men and wouldn't that help? I don't know. A lot of young men today seem so lost regarding what a healthy relationship looks like. Although, I have met some really excellent young men, also.
Exactly. If men could get pregnant this would be the only issue anybody in the country would care about. Except of course that if men could get pregnant no one would ever so much as even think about legislating anything related to reproductive health care. The misogyny feeds on itself and how do you break the cycle. It's maddening.
> If men could get pregnant
There are men who can get pregnant. But the Republicans hate them even more than women who can get pregnant.
This newsletter is one of the only truths we have, and it's getting scarier and scarier. Today's top hits for me:
--What are "severe" fetal anomalies? Who gets to define those?
--I have indeed talked to a guy at a get together who asserted the same "I'd hope the woman would do the right thing" BS about dangers to her during pregnancy. I was aghast. Stunned in silence. They exist. These people exist. And this was in a pretty sophisticated spot in NJ.
--10.2 billion dollars on ad spending when the planet is in crisis and people are either being burned alive or drowned from climate disasters. And we're fighting internally over something we tried to settle decades ago (minus the ERA, where is that?) - that women are equal and have autonomy over their own lives! All this money spent and half these candidates aren't worth a dime !
--“I just want other women to know that if they go through something like this, they’re not alone and it’s not their fault." (OK resident Statton, who was left to deteriorate in a hospital parking lot). Deep sigh... She's a saint, but I'd have said "I just want other women to know that if they vote Republican, and if they're Republican, they're voting against themselves as a whole human being. They're voting for their subjugation, physically, emotionally, socially-- in every way."
--Lastly, defining personhood at fertilization. That's what they want. That's the endgame. And in the Constitution. Zygotes with due process rights, fetal lawyers.
The danger to us should Trump win reelection is profound.
One thing that's frustrating is that to those of us here, it's obvious that this is the most important issue, not only for its own sake but because the implications are so deep for everything else in our society and civilization. But we're unlikely to get everyone who agrees with us on reproductive rights to be a single issue voter. And since Republican politicians have so far remained united, our only hope is with Democratic party victories. That means that our fate is subject to what voters think about everything else related to Democrats, from (their perceptions of) Joe Biden's mental fitness to whether they think California is well governed. Abortion is our best issue, and that can lift everything else up, but everything else can also pull us down. I think the choice is obvious, but if it really were obvious to everyone else then we wouldn't be here at all.
So, will the KY legislature go after everyone born in the state of Kentucky who ever had a tubal ligation or vasectomy and no longer lives in the state of Kentucky? Including the asshats in congress?
The simple answer for the BS that Tumorville is doing is to start closing military bases in red states and moving those capabilities to blue states. Tommy will be happy because the military won't have to reimburse travel for abortion. Start with bases in Alabama.
Share this idea with everyone you know, help it go viral!
THIS EXACTLY.
Yes! That is exactly what Democratic politicians should be arguing/proposing.
Clicking through to that poll from The Hill, it looks as though young men were pretty evenly divided, which would definitely be an improvement over older generations of men. A problem with men, especially white men, is they can treat politics as abstract and ideological, an intellectual exercise, because their privilege means they're rarely the ones affected by the policies. When all the harms are hypothetical you don't distinguish between real and imagined dangers, and you can miss what's right in front of you in favor of what you tell yourself is some higher principle.
Oh, you are so right here, Zach.
I’ve seen so many men tell women they’re too emotional about topics like abortion without having done any self-reflection into why it isn’t an emotional topic for them.
I’m not feeling well, so I’m not sure I’ll be able to express this clearly, and I’m going to use <gasp> generalizations. It often seems to me that white men in particular think they are the only people capable of logic, the only ones whose opinions should really count, because they’re the only truly objective people.
Abortion, equal pay, the distribution of labor (including emotional labor) in the home, government funded childcare, domestic violence, affirmative action, systemic racism and sexism - name a topic the weight of which doesn’t fall on white men, and they’ll tell you they’re more objective. They extrapolate out from that to decree that this is an inherent trait that they have and others don’t.
Then when an issue comes up that *does* impact them, they assume they’re being objective and logical about that, too - but just look at the reaction to any gun control measures, for example. “The government is coming for your guns! They’re going to take them all away and leave you defenseless!” Tell me *that* isn’t an emotionally based reaction. “Oh, no, it’s just objective logic. If we have to register our guns, or have background checks, that leads to government confiscation. It’s just logic. We won’t have a country anymore.”
Riiight, dude. That’s not at *all* testerical.
Testerical 😂
Considering the etymology of hysterical, I think it’s appropriate to use testerical when it’s men expressing that.
Yes I understood the context which is why it made me laugh.
Yes. I think it's even worse when you ask them to interact with women without harassing them. "Well no man is going to be able to talk to any woman anymore!" Seriously? That childish response is indicative of someone whom you should NOT listen to on the issue. But yes so many men it seems have never been forced to grow out of that stage. It ought to be embarrassing.
I wasn't even necessarily thinking of objectivity here, but you're absolutely right and I guess it's related. We remember when the media thought that reporters who had ever been harassed or assaulted should not cover stories related to those topics, because they couldn't be objective. So of course white men end up being the only ones who are 'objective'. Nice trick by those who are in power. (They never thought to say anyone who had been a harasser or assailant or had watched their buddies do it without saying anything couldn't be objective.)
Yeah what I was thinking of is privilege, and here it's the privilege of being seen as objective when everyone else is seen to have a point of view. Sidetrack, but what kind of motivated me is this: Nate Silver is my trusted numbers guy, and I think his political views match up fairly well with mine, and he's got a substack and he recently started taking paid subscriptions while he's not under contract with anyone. Reading the comments section on his post the other day immediately makes me aware of being in a different world. You can tell there's a plethora of white guys, and so many of them seem to think of the issues in abstract philosophical ways, about values and ideas, rather than looking at who is this policy actively hurting right now and what is the harm being done. Men, especially white men, have the luxury of looking at issues that way because they're not really personally that badly affected by them one way or the other - because of course if they were, those things wouldn't BE "issues", it would be a consensus that was obvious to everyone! Anyway I get the sense that this is where the "debate me" schtick comes from. People should not have to debate their humanity; these guys wouldn't and it would never even occur to them that's something that's even conceivable, even as they do it to everybody else. Fucking privilege, man.
I'm rambling but you made the exact same point when you said that the only things which are considered 'issues' up for discussion are things that don't affect white men. White man is the default human, so he's objective and everyone else is an 'other' with a point of view.
If I wanted to be optimistic I'd say maybe we're finally starting to scratch the surface of changing that, and that's why they've gone nuts and the backlash is so incredibly fierce. They're getting just a little taste of how everyone else lives, and they have no experience of it or tolerance for it!
I should edit this shorter but oh well :) It really makes me grateful for the community here, where most are women and you don't do things that way. I always try to be aware and hopefully any Y-chromosome habits I have don't come across and annoy too much! Even so women are patient and tolerant and I'm very thankful for that.
Regarding the Vox piece, the concern is that if laws are enforced exclusively by citizen bounty hunters, their constitutionality can't be challenged pre-enforcement, because of the court's decision in Jackson which let the Texas law slide. It's not completely clear to me what the court really meant by that, considering that I think they were quite aware at that point that they were going to overturn Roe, but there's an easy way to find out. A blue state needs to pass a law banning guns but only enforceable by private bounty hunters. Presumably the court would not take a pass on that. And then they would have to indicate in what circumstances such laws could indeed be preemptively challenged, and that would be precedent for similarly structured laws regarding travel, speech, etc. My point is that if the other side wants to fucking play games, then let's step up and play the fucking game.
I thought Gavin Newsome was doing something like that in CA?
Yes, I remember reading that. But I haven't heard anything since. I also remember that others in California were against the idea, because they knew it was a stunt and that they would lose. To be fair, one has to consider the political implications of that kind of legislating, but I would think there are enough safe Democrats in California to do it. -Someone- has to fight back. Honestly the other side uses lots of clever devious tactics, and idk whether our side thinks we're too good for that, or that we'll lose support if we act like that too, but this is a war, and we're getting killed out here. -Something- has to change. We have to find ways to make them choose between either saying and doing things they don't want to, or retreating. Their behavior has to have consequences.
I think we just have to be smart about which of their clever devious tactics we adopt, and in which circumstances.
We are too good for some of the shit they pull.
It's not always an easy call. But if the other side is willing to get their hands dirty AND that gives them an advantage, we do have to have a strategy for that.
I agree.
I would think that the concept of "standing" should be evaluated. In other words, courts could throw out your suit because you were not harmed.
This is a real problem. If you aren’t dead, you weren’t harmed. That needs changing obv.
Well, being harmed includes property loss, injury, etc. as well.
I was thinking of malpractice; this isn’t really about malpractice but it’s nearly impossible to bring a malpractice case unless someone has died and I thought that’s what you were referring to. As far as civl cases, the only practical information I have is that even if you have been harmed and/or defrauded and it’s proven in court, good luck even getting legal costs covered let alone losses, regardless of amount. Even if you get an award, it may be up to you to recover the award. I don’t know what the answer is, but I’m so glad people are here discussing. I am no legal expert and I completely agree that property loss and injury count!
It seems like it always has to be class action. I suppose it's a thorny problem because if it's too easy to be successful suing other people then the bad ones take advantage of it (i.e. people who interact with the world the way Donald Trump does). On the other hand the justice system is supposed to deliver exactly that, justice, and it's not supposed to be based on how many resources you have available to put into it.
Yes, and even class action is so hard and frequently provides little for those who are harmed. There are great attorneys working hard to do good, but I think we have swung away from justice in general. It seems like the tales of abuse of the system and huge awards were mythology used to push back against individual human rights and protections and deregulate the system.
As always, you're the absolute best! Thank you for your work. As a MO resident, I've been calling, emailing daily. It will probably do nothing, but it makes me feel like I've done something this week. The doom I feel is unmatched. I lost pregnancies at 16 and 22 wks. I now have 2 live children but, I almost died giving birth to my 2nd (as did he) I was always a c section due to my multiple spinal surgeries and loads of metal. Even then, I almost died. We work at catholic hospital (I'm out for the moment to be with my youngest, my husband is still there) and they would not tie my tubes EVEN THOUGH I would pay out of pocket 5000 bucks because the priest board denied it. I'm 42. Had my kids in my 30s. I'm now 12 surgeries deep, fresh hip replacement and all. Even then, it was a hard no. We had to wait for my d&e even though my babies had no heartbeat due to how far along I was and that was 10 yrs ago! I'm sorry for rambling, my grammar, etc. I just want to say you make a difference in my day. Your words bring fire and a strange comfort to know I'm not alone in my fear, to know I'm not "over reacting" or being "alarmist " . I was a clinic escort in college. I'm originally from WV. I worked with them until I moved to MO. Never stop doing what you do. You're a Rockstar and I'm just thankful for you.
That is a lot of surgeries. I hope your health can be better going forward. I wish we could force the Catholic hospitals to actually provide health care. We all hope Missouri can get reproductive rights on the ballot and pass it, and then it's just a matter of whether the Republicans who run the state will follow its constitution.
Scapegoating, victim-blaming, dehumanizing. One of the top comments today “these people exist”. Indeed, there’s an increasing incidence of personality disorders, including antisocial (some people refer to this as psychopathy or sociopathy). It’s real, and exists in disturbing numbers.
One of our pro-life legislators was kicked out of a theatre recently, partly for refusing to stop vaping. She was sitting near a pregnant woman who asked her to stop.
I had a screw pierce my spinal column after a spinal fusion. The doc didn't believe my pain and I went a year like that. Lost feeling everywhere in my legs, hands, etc. We had read that screws can back out In active ,young people soo I thought it was a fluke and he did a 2nd surgery. It didn't go well. Thankfully, it was fixed but now I'm part robot . I feel good considering! Thankful for therapy, PT, medication and the will to keep on keeping on! 💜💜
I’m so sorry.
Regarding the paragraph quoted from a campaign website, voters don't seem to be buying the 15-week bans (right?), which is good. I wonder whether that's because they understand that those policies aren't reasonable, or because they don't trust that those are the policies Republicans would actually implement. It's always important to know what voters are thinking, not just which way they're leaning.