I don't know where else to ask this, but are there any predictions about what people might think is going to happen after Mexico struck down laws criminalizing abortion. Does anyone else think Mexico may now become an abortion clinic destination? For many low income women in the Rio Grand valley, Mexico would be easier to get to than another US State.
Abortion was already legalized in Coahuila, the state that borders Texas. There's already a flood of women going over the border to get abortions. There's in fact an underground movement to do so called Las Libres (free women) to provide abortion pills.
The Post-Roe Abortion Underground
A multigenerational network of activists is getting abortion pills across the Mexican border to Americans.
It’s not much of a stretch at this point for “Operation Lone Star” to patrol both ways: razor wire and buoys and militarized fascist intimidation and harassment can keep people out…and in. Abbott and crew will totally use this militia to arrest women trying to leave the state for healthcare.
It makes sense. Texas women need all the help they can get. The state would presumably demand the border patrol not allow women of childbearing age to cross. And if they'd need a passport that would be a burden for lower income women. So I just wonder whether women who would have the ability to go to Mexico would also have the ability to go to, say, Colorado. But we need to throw everything we have at this problem so let's hope for lots of border clinics. If enough people are trying to cross it will be just like the traffic going the other way, too much to stop. 🤞
Well, obviously, the women that could do this would have to be citizens or legal residents; but I assume many of them already have passports, because the residents of many border towns often have family in Mexico, and the reason for entry could simply be "visiting family". I'm 70 miles north of San Diego, and many times the people that I normally have work on our pond or yard are unavailable because they are on holiday visiting family in Mexico. They wouldn't do this if they couldn't get back. Heck, I used to have a boss who lived in Mexico--he spent Mon-Thur in the US, and drove back to Mexico every weekend.
Good points. I suppose I was thinking of whether or not it would help lower income women in Texas who don't have family in Mexico. It's interesting that "escape to Canada" has always been an idealized solution to problems in the United States and now "escape to Mexico" is becoming attractive too. At least we have good neighbors.
That Llano ordinance strategy is so disturbing. From the WaPo article:
"Antiabortion advocates behind the measure are targeting regions along interstates and in areas with airports, with the goal of blocking off the main arteries out of Texas and keeping pregnant women hemmed within the confines of their antiabortion state. "
Harrowing and frightening ! These people are monsters.
Texas opened a pandora's box with the "aid and abet" Wish the Democrats could turn this around somehow and threaten a similar vigilante law -- to be an example of the absolute destruction to humanity and a civilized society that it is.
So how are they determining whether or not a pregnant person is traveling for leisure, business or an abortion? Are they suggesting that any pregnant person who travels is potentially looking to abort and therefore anyone who provides transportation to any pregnant person is automatically trafficking because the fetus wasn’t consulted? They are insane.
I'd like to think it's a scare tactic only, but I can envision a scenario in which someone "snitches" (in quotes because the person snitched on has done nothing wrong), then there's an investigation, medical / travel / phone /GPS records are sought, etc., and then they can prosecute based on the abortion trafficking law -- they need to tether it to something in-state. If these abortion trafficking laws are found unconstitutional, they'll try something else, like being female and of child-bearing age.
Scare tactics are very effective and have minimal cost to the legislators who can point to say... doctors who won't perform an abortion because they are afraid and suddenly the life of the mother doesn't actually count for much. If no one is willing to help a pregnant person travel out of state on the off-chance that she might be traveling to get an abortion then any pregnant person will be unable to book travel conveniently. It isn't benign. It affects all women of reproductive age. That's why we are developing more and more maternity care deserts.
Which is why I said I want a letter from my GYN stating that I cannot be pregnant. Since it’s not always obvious when a woman is pregnant, they will harass every woman to prove she isn’t pregnant to leave the state. I live in SC, another land of assholes.
This is precisely what they’re suggesting. If you are pregnant, no out-of-state travel for the duration because, no matter what you say, you may be traveling for an abortion.
"Meanwhile, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’ grand new plan for abortion is requiring men to pay child support starting at conception—something that hasn’t gone over too well so far!"
So if a dad rapes his daughter and she becomes pregnant does he get out of child support because it is his granddaughter? Fuckers.
Almost everyone acts like fetal personhood is the end of the game. But the fetus being a person doesn't give it rights to the pregnant person's body. Why would it? We need a better explanation from the lawyers on this. Was hoping Jessica and Grace would eventually get one.
I think it's absurd to say a fetus is a person, but, for the sake of argument, let's say it is. So what? I'm a person. And I don't have any rights to anyone else's body. But what if I NEED it to live? Still doesn't matter. I don't have any rights to anyone else's body.
So why does a fetus? What's the legal answer there? It's got to be more than just Son of Sam said so. But we haven't been able to find an answer.
Forced birthers are arguing from the perspective that the fetus is not just a person, but a child entitled to duties of parental care exclusively available from the pregnant woman. As a result, the normal rights to self-defense don't apply. For example, we aren't allowed to kick our toddlers or teenagers out of the house because they keep us up all night and wreck the house. The Virginia Law Review describes this non-consensual imposition of obligations on a pregnant woman as an adhesion contract, which is illegal in other contexts.
Why are fetuses the only people entitled to the use of other people's bodies? A drunk driver could hit a bus full of children and still not be obligated to donate their blood or organs to save any of their lives.
I had thought of that. But in that case they're arguing there's no element of consent involved in becoming a parent, right? If you're raped, if your contraceptive fails, etc. - becoming a parent is just something that happens to you that you can't do anything about? (other than get sterilized, and they'll make that illegal too) Sometimes I think there's value in forcing the public to confront all the logical conclusions, to see what is really being argued. Idk.
It's a classic special pleading fallacy. They'll just say she created it so she needs to "suffer the consequences," the "consequences" meaning literal children. It always comes down to punishing women's sexual behavior using children as a justice system.
My husband is a lawyer, but he sees abortion as a political issue. Like the bible, the law can support a wide range of conclusions. I skimmed this article on the evolution of marital coverture law and it was a stark reminder of how recently wives were still essentially the property of their husbands.
Per the common law tradition, a husband had an inviolable "property interest" in all his wife's property, children, and paid and unpaid labor (sexual, reproductive, and domestic) with divorce being unattainable for the great majority of women. Physical discipline of wives was permitted. Women only won the legal right to their own wages in 1900. Marital rape only became a crime in all 50 states in 1993. So the law is not our friend.
I think that's the primary problem that lawyers are seeing this as a "political issue" rather than a human rights issue. Yes the law is like the bible. It is more of a religion than anything remotely based on reason. People just make it up as they go along. But there should be consensus on what human rights are in the 21st century.
I definitely agree. What I'm thinking is this: we can either try to play by the rules, solve this within the system, and hope that the public will choose the people playing by the rules (us) over those who are not (them). Or we can take their approach and try to blow everything up. It doesn't seem like our side is ready for the second option yet, although we may get there. (Also we might lose any advantages we may have if we do things their way, I'm not really sure). So we're desperately looking for ways to make the first option work, and that's the (only) reason I would bother with the legal arguments.
Sorry to be so pedantic. I just see the whole of women's legal rights in the crosshairs, with the right coming after no-fault divorce as well. Loss of no-fault divorce would keep women trapped in marriages with tyrannical men, which is a condition deeply rooted in our traditions. It is well-documented that suicide among women decreased 20% with the availability of no-fault divorce. And I don't think they were all suicides.
I guess I’m not totally sure what a lawyer would uncover there. Do you want a review of relevant case law around concepts like self-defense and bodily autonomy? 🤔
Cause a lot of this seems to come down ultimately to judicial interpretation/preference and power to back it up. And I think that’s why the law community (Strict Scrutiny, Rewire, etc) is so spun up because they’re seeing basic legal processes being blown up to make these rulings -- like having to demonstrate that you have been harmed (standing) or honoring past precedents when no new facts have been entered (stare decisis) or just 👏 whether the ruling is based on basic facts of the case 👏 (public school prayer on a football field being a “private” prayer, a design studio being asked to make a website for a gay couple actually turning out to be a straight person who never asked for those services, the fda drugs ruling). We’re in la-la land.
These are all excellent points and why the situation is so alarming. It seems like broadly speaking, we have two options. Try to play by the rules even though they do not, or do what they do and try to blow everything up. The first option seems like having one hand tied behind our back, but if there's an advantage it's that we have the moral high ground and that may have some persuasive value to the public. Or perhaps more correctly, if we do what they do we have a harder time arguing right and wrong and it becomes even more just about raw power. It does seem they are pushing it that way anyway because that's where they think they have the advantage. I'm just thinking if there's any value in trying to make the case how we can solve this without tearing everything down, it's worth doing it, we can say we tried, even if it's ultimately in vain.
Hey you beautiful people. I have flat out for 10 days. We had such great news for the young women in rural CT. The state denied the corporate ownership's request for closure of labor and delivery. Women in rural communities are 60% more likely to die before, during or after childbirth than our urban counterparts due to lack of access. A 45 minute drive to the hospital to give birth is unacceptable. The state's office of Health Strategy's decision in this issue was a full-throated endorsement of access to safe birthing, and an unequivocal rebuke of the ownership's claims that it would not matter. It makes me so happy to live in CT. My goal, once our hospital is up and running properly again, to see if we can't get this into the state constitution! Read the decision. They used a ton of my research and our area submitted 12,000 pages of testimony in support of keeping the services. Almost 1/2 the population of the entire region!!!!!!! The great work of a group I helped form, Save Sharon Hospital. I went off on my own, it was easier to operate under the radar. I even brough it up with the governor at a fundraiser where a majority of the guests were CEO of hospital chains!!!!!!!!! God works in mysterious ways!!! It was something I did not know at the time!!! Read the decision if you can. It is fantastic. file:///Users/deborah/Downloads/Proposed Final Decision (1).pdf
I don't know where else to ask this, but are there any predictions about what people might think is going to happen after Mexico struck down laws criminalizing abortion. Does anyone else think Mexico may now become an abortion clinic destination? For many low income women in the Rio Grand valley, Mexico would be easier to get to than another US State.
Abortion was already legalized in Coahuila, the state that borders Texas. There's already a flood of women going over the border to get abortions. There's in fact an underground movement to do so called Las Libres (free women) to provide abortion pills.
The Post-Roe Abortion Underground
A multigenerational network of activists is getting abortion pills across the Mexican border to Americans.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/10/17/the-post-roe-abortion-underground
It’s not much of a stretch at this point for “Operation Lone Star” to patrol both ways: razor wire and buoys and militarized fascist intimidation and harassment can keep people out…and in. Abbott and crew will totally use this militia to arrest women trying to leave the state for healthcare.
It makes sense. Texas women need all the help they can get. The state would presumably demand the border patrol not allow women of childbearing age to cross. And if they'd need a passport that would be a burden for lower income women. So I just wonder whether women who would have the ability to go to Mexico would also have the ability to go to, say, Colorado. But we need to throw everything we have at this problem so let's hope for lots of border clinics. If enough people are trying to cross it will be just like the traffic going the other way, too much to stop. 🤞
Well, obviously, the women that could do this would have to be citizens or legal residents; but I assume many of them already have passports, because the residents of many border towns often have family in Mexico, and the reason for entry could simply be "visiting family". I'm 70 miles north of San Diego, and many times the people that I normally have work on our pond or yard are unavailable because they are on holiday visiting family in Mexico. They wouldn't do this if they couldn't get back. Heck, I used to have a boss who lived in Mexico--he spent Mon-Thur in the US, and drove back to Mexico every weekend.
Good points. I suppose I was thinking of whether or not it would help lower income women in Texas who don't have family in Mexico. It's interesting that "escape to Canada" has always been an idealized solution to problems in the United States and now "escape to Mexico" is becoming attractive too. At least we have good neighbors.
That Llano ordinance strategy is so disturbing. From the WaPo article:
"Antiabortion advocates behind the measure are targeting regions along interstates and in areas with airports, with the goal of blocking off the main arteries out of Texas and keeping pregnant women hemmed within the confines of their antiabortion state. "
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/09/01/texas-abortion-highways/
Harrowing and frightening ! These people are monsters.
Texas opened a pandora's box with the "aid and abet" Wish the Democrats could turn this around somehow and threaten a similar vigilante law -- to be an example of the absolute destruction to humanity and a civilized society that it is.
So how are they determining whether or not a pregnant person is traveling for leisure, business or an abortion? Are they suggesting that any pregnant person who travels is potentially looking to abort and therefore anyone who provides transportation to any pregnant person is automatically trafficking because the fetus wasn’t consulted? They are insane.
I'd like to think it's a scare tactic only, but I can envision a scenario in which someone "snitches" (in quotes because the person snitched on has done nothing wrong), then there's an investigation, medical / travel / phone /GPS records are sought, etc., and then they can prosecute based on the abortion trafficking law -- they need to tether it to something in-state. If these abortion trafficking laws are found unconstitutional, they'll try something else, like being female and of child-bearing age.
Scare tactics are very effective and have minimal cost to the legislators who can point to say... doctors who won't perform an abortion because they are afraid and suddenly the life of the mother doesn't actually count for much. If no one is willing to help a pregnant person travel out of state on the off-chance that she might be traveling to get an abortion then any pregnant person will be unable to book travel conveniently. It isn't benign. It affects all women of reproductive age. That's why we are developing more and more maternity care deserts.
Which is why I said I want a letter from my GYN stating that I cannot be pregnant. Since it’s not always obvious when a woman is pregnant, they will harass every woman to prove she isn’t pregnant to leave the state. I live in SC, another land of assholes.
Reading that reminds me that people mentioning the Handsmaids Tale will happen after Dobbs where not being hyperbolic
This is precisely what they’re suggesting. If you are pregnant, no out-of-state travel for the duration because, no matter what you say, you may be traveling for an abortion.
Abortion is the canary in the coal mine--birth control is absolutely next on the Gilead agenda.
I really want to make a comic showing why there is no good “week” to ban abortions.
"Meanwhile, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’ grand new plan for abortion is requiring men to pay child support starting at conception—something that hasn’t gone over too well so far!"
So if a dad rapes his daughter and she becomes pregnant does he get out of child support because it is his granddaughter? Fuckers.
Oof
Double shit. We're a nation of idiots
24 children have died in hot cars nationwide in 2023: 'This is a great tragedy'
Almost everyone acts like fetal personhood is the end of the game. But the fetus being a person doesn't give it rights to the pregnant person's body. Why would it? We need a better explanation from the lawyers on this. Was hoping Jessica and Grace would eventually get one.
The Boom Lawyered podcast focuses on repro law, its a fantastic listen
Made me think of https://virginialawreview.org/articles/state-abortion-bans-pregnancy-as-a-new-form-of-coverture/ shared with me by another AED reader. I mean women not being in charge of their bodies is deeply rooted in our historical traditions.
Yes, that's exactly what I was referring to! :)
I think it's absurd to say a fetus is a person, but, for the sake of argument, let's say it is. So what? I'm a person. And I don't have any rights to anyone else's body. But what if I NEED it to live? Still doesn't matter. I don't have any rights to anyone else's body.
So why does a fetus? What's the legal answer there? It's got to be more than just Son of Sam said so. But we haven't been able to find an answer.
Forced birthers are arguing from the perspective that the fetus is not just a person, but a child entitled to duties of parental care exclusively available from the pregnant woman. As a result, the normal rights to self-defense don't apply. For example, we aren't allowed to kick our toddlers or teenagers out of the house because they keep us up all night and wreck the house. The Virginia Law Review describes this non-consensual imposition of obligations on a pregnant woman as an adhesion contract, which is illegal in other contexts.
Why are fetuses the only people entitled to the use of other people's bodies? A drunk driver could hit a bus full of children and still not be obligated to donate their blood or organs to save any of their lives.
I had thought of that. But in that case they're arguing there's no element of consent involved in becoming a parent, right? If you're raped, if your contraceptive fails, etc. - becoming a parent is just something that happens to you that you can't do anything about? (other than get sterilized, and they'll make that illegal too) Sometimes I think there's value in forcing the public to confront all the logical conclusions, to see what is really being argued. Idk.
It's a classic special pleading fallacy. They'll just say she created it so she needs to "suffer the consequences," the "consequences" meaning literal children. It always comes down to punishing women's sexual behavior using children as a justice system.
I wish we could get a lawyer to comment on this. Just have to keep repeating it I guess.
My husband is a lawyer, but he sees abortion as a political issue. Like the bible, the law can support a wide range of conclusions. I skimmed this article on the evolution of marital coverture law and it was a stark reminder of how recently wives were still essentially the property of their husbands.
https://openyls.law.yale.edu/bitstream/handle/20.500.13051/289/The_Modernization_of_Marital_Status_Law___Adjudicating_Wives__Rights_to_Earning_.pdf
Per the common law tradition, a husband had an inviolable "property interest" in all his wife's property, children, and paid and unpaid labor (sexual, reproductive, and domestic) with divorce being unattainable for the great majority of women. Physical discipline of wives was permitted. Women only won the legal right to their own wages in 1900. Marital rape only became a crime in all 50 states in 1993. So the law is not our friend.
I think that's the primary problem that lawyers are seeing this as a "political issue" rather than a human rights issue. Yes the law is like the bible. It is more of a religion than anything remotely based on reason. People just make it up as they go along. But there should be consensus on what human rights are in the 21st century.
I definitely agree. What I'm thinking is this: we can either try to play by the rules, solve this within the system, and hope that the public will choose the people playing by the rules (us) over those who are not (them). Or we can take their approach and try to blow everything up. It doesn't seem like our side is ready for the second option yet, although we may get there. (Also we might lose any advantages we may have if we do things their way, I'm not really sure). So we're desperately looking for ways to make the first option work, and that's the (only) reason I would bother with the legal arguments.
Sorry to be so pedantic. I just see the whole of women's legal rights in the crosshairs, with the right coming after no-fault divorce as well. Loss of no-fault divorce would keep women trapped in marriages with tyrannical men, which is a condition deeply rooted in our traditions. It is well-documented that suicide among women decreased 20% with the availability of no-fault divorce. And I don't think they were all suicides.
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/stephen-crowder-divorce-1234727777/
I guess I’m not totally sure what a lawyer would uncover there. Do you want a review of relevant case law around concepts like self-defense and bodily autonomy? 🤔
Cause a lot of this seems to come down ultimately to judicial interpretation/preference and power to back it up. And I think that’s why the law community (Strict Scrutiny, Rewire, etc) is so spun up because they’re seeing basic legal processes being blown up to make these rulings -- like having to demonstrate that you have been harmed (standing) or honoring past precedents when no new facts have been entered (stare decisis) or just 👏 whether the ruling is based on basic facts of the case 👏 (public school prayer on a football field being a “private” prayer, a design studio being asked to make a website for a gay couple actually turning out to be a straight person who never asked for those services, the fda drugs ruling). We’re in la-la land.
These are all excellent points and why the situation is so alarming. It seems like broadly speaking, we have two options. Try to play by the rules even though they do not, or do what they do and try to blow everything up. The first option seems like having one hand tied behind our back, but if there's an advantage it's that we have the moral high ground and that may have some persuasive value to the public. Or perhaps more correctly, if we do what they do we have a harder time arguing right and wrong and it becomes even more just about raw power. It does seem they are pushing it that way anyway because that's where they think they have the advantage. I'm just thinking if there's any value in trying to make the case how we can solve this without tearing everything down, it's worth doing it, we can say we tried, even if it's ultimately in vain.
Well, kinda sucky stuff today. I did like the map though.
My initial thought was, "Not this again." The immediate next thought was, "You don't win wars by taking days off."
Hey you beautiful people. I have flat out for 10 days. We had such great news for the young women in rural CT. The state denied the corporate ownership's request for closure of labor and delivery. Women in rural communities are 60% more likely to die before, during or after childbirth than our urban counterparts due to lack of access. A 45 minute drive to the hospital to give birth is unacceptable. The state's office of Health Strategy's decision in this issue was a full-throated endorsement of access to safe birthing, and an unequivocal rebuke of the ownership's claims that it would not matter. It makes me so happy to live in CT. My goal, once our hospital is up and running properly again, to see if we can't get this into the state constitution! Read the decision. They used a ton of my research and our area submitted 12,000 pages of testimony in support of keeping the services. Almost 1/2 the population of the entire region!!!!!!! The great work of a group I helped form, Save Sharon Hospital. I went off on my own, it was easier to operate under the radar. I even brough it up with the governor at a fundraiser where a majority of the guests were CEO of hospital chains!!!!!!!!! God works in mysterious ways!!! It was something I did not know at the time!!! Read the decision if you can. It is fantastic. file:///Users/deborah/Downloads/Proposed Final Decision (1).pdf
That’s my home state! They value women there!
Congratulations! And thank you, Deborah! Connecticut is lucky to have you.
Good 4 CT and great job on your part. Maybe they can clone you attend the clones to other states😉
Thanks. I am too old to clone! It is CT... we are the land of steady habits, but those habits are very progressive. I love my state.
You're probably totipotent. Darn fast with your fingers at least.
I think about that a lot!
THANK YOU