71 Comments

I've found a way to help get more Democratic votes. Focus For Democracy - https://www.focus4democracy.org/ - I attend their Zooms and I donate to the organizations they recommend. They have proven plans (based on psychology and statistical research) to get more Democrats to actually vote - and they also educate undecided voters as to how they can help protect our democracy. I'm now supporting the organizations they recommend, rather than just flinging donations at various Democratic candidates. Too many people feel helpless and hopeless and aren't doing anything. This is something we CAN do. Please take a look. I think everyone here knows this is an emergency.

Expand full comment

Sorry, I saw your headline, AED at the Senate hearing on abortion, and my brain went to the thought that all those old white guys needed AEDs because all that effort to lie was giving them heart attacks. Eventually it would be good to see them fail, proving the old adage that “Liars never prosper.”

Expand full comment

Since I’m a retired ICU RN I always think “defibrillator” whenever I first see Jessica’s byline AED. 😊

Expand full comment

I was there! And the lines were INCREDIBLE! Also YES on everything you reported. That was a crazy shitshow of misinfo on the GOP side. Scary.

Expand full comment

Serious question, one I've been asking for years: Why should "we" keep our cool, politely explaining? Why shouldn't we show outrage? Why shouldn't we go on offense? The rules of the game have changed and we're still "going high." I have a problem with this strategy. I'm advising the congressional candidate who's listening to me to express outrage. Why would I vote for someone who isn't a fighter? And get this: One of the local major repro rights granddame organizations doesn't want him to be outraged and use the A-word. Honestly, this is wrongheaded and cowardly.

Expand full comment

I firmly agree. We must stop allowing the anti abortion people to control the narrative or the language!! I’m tired of using euphemisms because “they’ve” made the word ABORTION shameful.

No more guilt & shame, use the proper words!! In a medical record, we use the words Spontaneous Abortion, we don’t say miscarriage.

There was such a great special on msnbc this winter called “Periodicals”

The purpose was to remove the shame associated with menstruation, a normal bodily function. It’s ridiculous that young girls are menstruating & they don’t even understand what it is!!

We need to call an abortion what it is,

an ABORTION

Expand full comment

Absolutely. I challenge any rhetoric that apologizes for abortion…in fact, I want us to say we’re pro-abortion, not pro-choice. The pro-choice euphemism days are over!

Expand full comment

C-Span2 is showing Senate vote. “60 votes needed to begin work on bill [Access to Contraceptives]” 13 had not voted yet. Yes=51 & No=39

Schumer changed his vote to no just before voting closed in order to ask for another vote. By-line says “Republicans blocked …” The PUBLIC NEEDS TO STEP UP & WRITE THE SENATORS WHO VOTED NO, ESPECIALLY IF THEY ARE UP FOR ELECTION IN 2024, EXCEPT FOR SCHUMER WHO HAD GOOD REASON IN ORDER PUT IT BACK ON THE SCHEDULE.

Schumer filed cloture for the IVF bill which should come to a vote next week.

Mike Lee is blabbing about T & Biden & Democrats & dictators & kangaroo courts & Pandora’s box being opened & wants the prosecution to express error & stop this prosecution & … asks for help to, what sounded like pressure on the prosecution(?). That sounds… like a sound bite Fox/OANN/Newsmax & others will play tonight. 🤦‍♀️ Some of these Rs are out of control.

Expand full comment

Correction 10 had not voted. I forgot to update that number

Expand full comment

New rule at these hearings: Whenever a politician says something that is scientifically false, their mic is muted and a fact check happens citing the correct information in real time before they can continue speaking.

Expand full comment

👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏

Expand full comment

I was pleased to see this as the lead headline when I opened my WaPo App this morning:

"Conservative attacks on birth control could threaten access: Far-right conservatives are sowing misinformation that inaccurately characterizes IUDs, emergency contraception, even birth-control pills as causing abortions" It's about time! They still treat the extremists with undue deference instead of like the misogynist loons they are, but at least they are beginning to push back on the lies. I was disappointed that the Guardian, which is usually better at this, illustrated the story about the upcoming Senate vote on access to contraception with a photograph of a woman's hand with a pill captioned as mifepristone. This kind of sloppy conflation of contraception and abortion play right into extremists' hands. Of course, the entire range of reproductive healthcare should be legal, safe and accessible, but we can't afford to give these people an inch.

Expand full comment

It only took them two years! But..better late than never. They'll balance it by repeating double the dross the (so-called) "students for life" or the "Susan B Anthony" nutters group propaganda is.

Expand full comment

How does a doctor/abortion expert get away with claiming that pregnancy begins at fertilization? This is the basis on which she is claiming that an IUD is an "abortifacient" because it prevents implantation. But most fertilized gametes don't implant, and any medical textbook will tell you that the definition of the beginning of pregnancy is implantation. This may seem like a technical point, but it's how they're trying to turn birth control into abortion. Also, they're misstating how Plan C works--it delays ovulation, it doesn't prevent implantation. But it doesn't matter. There is only a pregnancy AFTER implantation.

Expand full comment

They also ignore the fact that a percentage of pregnancies end in miscarriage.

Their willingness to ignore, and to attack science and accepted medical practices is frightening.

Expand full comment

I was 20 min or so in before C-SPAN switched over to another hearing, 😡 It was my phone app so couldn’t get back. Then I got bits and pieces later, blood still boiling

Expand full comment

That pissed me off, too!!!

Expand full comment

I REALLY HATE those goddamned republican politicians and right-wing supreme court " politicians" ... that's what they ARE. I wish for them the most horrible KARMA. It can't come too soon. Assholes.

Expand full comment

I’ve been thinking a lot ever since the Texas Supreme Court came out with its recent ruling that essentially said the Texas abortion law is fine, it’s the doctors who are at fault for jeopardizing the health of women, which sounds like what they were pushing in this hearing too. It’s a fascinating argument. In the Texas lawsuit it means at least 20 different doctors, 20 different hospitals and 20 different legal teams all came up with the wrong answer. Seems odd that that many well educated people could get it wrong. Is the next step suing for malpractice? Which will just mean more doctors leave the state. It just makes me sick.

Expand full comment

Very good observation on the 20, 20, 20 - and between 20 hospitals I'm going to say over 100 lawyers, because hospitals have multiple lawyers. And don't forget about the board.

The Texas law for exemptions was specifically designed to be ambiguitous, they want these type of risky and damaged outcomes.

Expand full comment

And we should not forget about hospitals being bought by Catholic hospital chains, and then refusing to treat pregnant women because it's against the dogma of a misogynistic cult.

Expand full comment

Or the Baptists as they are in my area. They just got rid of treating the indigent.

Expand full comment

That’s terrible 😞

Expand full comment

Lena Khan needs to bring an anti trust lawsuit against the Catholic Church buying up all the hospitals, they are a monopoly or very near monopoly in many areas. This is it in the public’s interest & needs to be stopped

Expand full comment

Absolutely- religion really does poison everything. 2,000 fucking years of this shit

Expand full comment

Especially fundamentalistic versions.

Expand full comment

At 1:10, she says, "So, if you look at the package insert for ... such as ... the copper IUD, it actually clearly states that they do prevent implantation, even if fertilization has occured, which would classify that as an abortifacient. Yes, per the package insert."

This would qualify as documented evidence that even copper IUDs are abortifacients. Can anyone confirm or deny this? This verifies my own understanding of IUDs going back to the late nineteen sixties. In fact, this was one of the arguments for legalizing abortion. Since IUDs were in fact abortifacients and they were legal birth control, that abortion was already, in fact, legal in those early stages.

Remember, before Margaret Sanger and her political victories, birth control of any kind was illegal.

Expand full comment

The IUD is only an abortifacient if you consider a fertilized egg (that you cannot see with the naked eye) an actual PERSON......... that is the issue with these religious extremist nut bags.

I wonder if Francis had any "data" on the fact that it is widely estimated that nearly half of all fertilized eggs naturally pass through the uterus as a monthly period.

OH MY GOD....... all of the "abortions" that are happening naturally within our own bodies, because our body rejected the fertilized egg, there was something inferior, not right about it. OHHHHH.....the tragedy......the horror. We should probably just start locking women up when they have their period...... that must mean their body rejected something, she must have had an abortion, she didn't pray hard enough, she's a sinner, she didn't go to bible study, she disobeyed her husband , she didn't donate enough to the church she must have done something, it's all her fault......

Expand full comment

Thank you! It prevents implantation, which may not have happened, anyway. Implantation is where pregnancy actually begins, it is only an abortifacient if it interupts after implantation.

Expand full comment

This was the moment in the hearing when my head exploded. No, it does not make the IUD an abortifacient, because as every medical textbook says, pregnancy begins at implantation, not fertilization. There is good reason for that definition; one-third to one-half of fertilized gametes never implant. It's like looking at acorns all over the ground and claiming that they are baby oak trees. Not yet, and actually not most of them. This is how the thinking of the political right is creeping into people's thinking. We can't let them persuade us that a fertilized egg is a fetus is a baby is a person under the 14th amendment.

Expand full comment

Sorry, but you are all still stuck with the simple, all important act of that sperm merging with that ova. This is at the bottom of animal biological continuity. It represents the ancient chain of life going all the way back to the early formation of simple celled organisms, our common ancestors. It poses the unanswered question as to why sexual reproduction is important at all for both animal and plant life. And of course comparing any plant sexual reproduction with human sexual reproduction does not excite a lot of respect.

If pregnancy does not start with the merging of ova and sperm, then what do you call that period of gestation between fertilization and implantation? Medical text books can be as vulnerable to politics as any publication. Furthermore medicine is a narrow field, biology is not.

Expand full comment

Dude. I don’t understand why you’re arguing with women here, prochoice orgs, medical orgs and reproductive legal history about when pregnancy starts.

I believe based on your other posts you are prochoice and here in good faith.

I just don’t see what you get out of it.

I mean there are decades of history defining pregnancy as post implantation.

Check out this 20 year old link:

https://www.guttmacher.org/gpr/2005/05/implications-defining-when-woman-pregnant#

Expand full comment

By this logic, I am pregnant 9 times over because I have 9 frozen embryos that grew to blastocyst stage. Of those 9 only 3 are genetically normal and can potentially result in a healthy PREGNANCY WHEN IT IS IN MY UTERUS. Or am I just forever pregnant now since I have frozen embryos?

Expand full comment

It's called the luteal phase. It happens every month whether there's an embryo floating around in there or not.

Expand full comment

The luteal phase has absolutely nothing to do with a fertilized ova. A fertilized ova changes everything. It starts dividing and growing right away. It needs and gets nutrients. Between fertilization and implantation is a lot of complicated development. This is where the placenta first begins to form. It sends out signals to indicate its changed status.

Expand full comment

It sure does, and if the corpus luteum isn't making enough progesterone, you won't have a chance to become pregnant that cycle. Also. the egg and CL come from the same folicle. And the fertilized egg does not care if it is in a fallopian tube or a petri dish. A woman who conceived naturally is not any more pregnant than an ivf patient getting a phone call about how many embryos made it to blast before transfer. The placenta is made of maternal and fetal cells, you can't have it until you have implantation- prior to that you just have a "hatched" embryo.

Expand full comment

I think you really explain yourself and your arguments when you say that a woman "conceiving naturally" is equally pregnant with an IVF patient getting a phone call from a lab. I would seriously question your other claims about this biology as well.

I think we can agree that at no point does any of this tissue qualify as a baby, an "unborn child" or human being or any of the other claims made by the anti-abortionists. We are disputing language applied to sexual reproduction and its various stages after the merging of sperm and ova.

What do you say is the biological significance of that event? In pregnancy, what is the role of the merging of sperm and ova?

Expand full comment
Jun 5·edited Jun 5

Or to put it another way, if we take a fertilized egg and put it up your nose then by your definition you are pregnant. And if you then sneeze then you've had an abortion.

Expand full comment

If you put all of the ingredients for a cake on the counter, mix them together but don’t bake it, is it a cake? If that cell doesn’t receive oxygen, nourishment, and waste removal then it dies. How does it get those things? By implanting in the uterus. If that fertilized egg implants in the fallopian tube, it can’t receive these things. There is NO POSSIBILITY for a human child to exist without implanting in the mother’s uterus and taking the oxygen, nutrients and waste removal from her. The mother does the work.

Expand full comment

Sorry, but you are starting to flake out. You are beginning to sound like they do.

Expand full comment

Every somatic cell in your body carries all the information required to build a complete new you. Billions upon billions of tiny potential Pauls, if only we knew how to do the work to signal those cells and nurture them to completion. But we don’t, so those POTENTIAL little clones don’t become baby Pauls. That’s the problem with claiming that a fertilized egg is a human being. Potential is not actuality. A POTENTIAL pregnancy is not an ACTUAL pregnancy, and every single argument ignores the work the woman does to build that human. That’s work you cannot do, even if we were able to attach a fertilized egg to your intestine. Your immune system would attack it and your endocrine system would not be able to send the right hormones to sustain it. It takes a functioning UTERUS to build a human. Even plants have failure rates in germination. Seeds are fertilized ova and they don’t always result in a seedling so no one calls a watermelon seed a watermelon because that would be bonkers. It’s time to consider that what you were taught was wrong and the people with a uterus, they, know the scientific truth.

Expand full comment

You are dishonestly posing me as having said or implied something that I absolutely have not done and more to the opposite.

Expand full comment

No, she sounds perfectly fine & made a great analogy, & you sound like you are just trying to start an argument over a minute detail.

Expand full comment

Just think of the mass murder of baby oak trees by those abortion loving squirrels. Perfidious varmints!

Expand full comment

I really want to watch the hearing, but I'm not sure I can stand it- that short clip with Senator Murray had me grinding my teeth.

Expand full comment
Jun 5·edited Jun 6

I cannot AT ALL fathom the thinking or rationale behind wanting a women to go through labor just to deliver an already dead baby. Just to have an "intact fetal body"? Like, WTF? If a woman's pregnancy is already not viable, then she should be given the best treatment possible for her own health.

Expand full comment

Never, never forget that to forced birthers all women carry Eve's sin of tempting Adam in the Garden. In their warped POV we deserve to suffer. Francis and the forced birth community don't consider women to be fully human. To them we are literally walking incubators, useful only to give birth and to service our godly husband's. See: Harrison Butker

Expand full comment

Wow. Just wow! The fact that religion is guiding these court decisions should make them illegal! Where is the separation of church and state? Long gone.

Expand full comment

Thank you for being there for us, Grace.

Expand full comment