Self-described “pro-lifers” tell us their anti-abortion laws are working as intended. They say this after they hear the same horror stories the rest of us hear. They don’t want to fix the mess they have created, they want it to continue.
This means “pro-lifers” are fine with letting women suffer, risk permanent impairment, and death. In fact, they tell us they want a national ban on abortions — so they want more horror inflicted on pregnant women.
So now when I hear any one call themself “pro-life” I know what they really mean: let women suffer and die.
What I find particularly galling about the rhetoric from forced birthers is that they always claim to be "protecting women," when in fact their laws are inflicting grievous harm on women all around the country. Infuriating.
I don’t understand why the AMA isn’t fighting harder for their turf. When it suits the government to use doctors in their explanation for imposing medical intervention (like certain c-section rulings or vaccinations) they don’t hesitate to do it. But if it doesn’t suit them, they imply that doctors’ evaluations of risks and needs for treatment can’t be trusted and only the government can make the determination. It’s bonkers.
Re the AMA, I learned recently how instrumental this org was in its earliest days (founded in 1847) in bringing about more restrictive anti-abortion laws. The two most recent biographies of Madame Restell, the pseudonym of New York's leading abortion/contraception provider in the 19th century, both explain the sad role of AMA and male physicians in pushing midwives and female medical practitioners out of the field, using moralistic views on abortion as a smokescreen (Granted, women could not attend medical school at the time, so they had to be self-taught, and schools of the era were grossly inadequate).
Recommended reading: "Madame Restell: The Life, Death and Resurrection of Old New York's Most Fabulous, Fearless and Infamous Abortionist," by Jennifer Wright and "The Trials of Madame Restell: 19th Century America's Most Infamous Female Physician and the Campaign to Make Abortion a Crime," by Nicholas L. Syrett.
Let me get this straight… One of the arguments they are using against the mailing of abortion medication is that traffickers will use it on innocent women and girls who have been trafficked. They are saying that it’s preferable for trafficking victims to carry pregnancies that are a result of forced sex, aka rape? What do they imagine will happen to a trafficked female who becomes pregnant? Do they imagine they will be given medical care? Do they think they will be allowed to keep any child that might survive? Or does that become another income stream…black market babies? Have they thought their argument through?
They want those babies, that is why they have taken over the adoption agencies in many states. Remember all the babies that they 'lost" from the border? I will bet you anything they were trafficked through Betsy DeVos's adoption agency that she is an investor in.
My heart is broken💔: As friends & family know, my wife was pregnant with our 2nd child, & about to begin her 2nd trimester. A few days ago she had severe pains, & bleeding, and had to go to the emergency room. There, it was discovered that our baby no longer had a heartbeat. Devastated doesn't come close to what that feels like.
Unfortunately for people like us, because of the current laws in the state of Texas, that was only the beginning of this nightmare. Jess (my wife) had an "incomplete miscarriage", and what needed to happen, what was best for HER, and her health, was to terminate the pregnancy, and get the baby out.
The doctor gave her a medication that would move this process along, and sent her home. Where, apparently we would be handling it ourselves. We were told it might take a couple of attempts before it worked.
I'll let you decide how you feel about that. (continued... in the tweet)
ADF is quoted here as saying “States have a duty to protect their most vulnerable citizens and their families from harm.” I agree! And the truth is that you are not a citizen until birth according to the 14th Amendment.
This means that the government must value the freedoms and rights of a woman over that of a fetus inside the woman. Private citizens can still try to convince others not to have an abortion but the power of government cannot be used without violating the Constitution.
Trying again--my previous comment was eaten. The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act is a federal statute that, in most of the US (it's been partially enjoined in Texas, that notably pregnant-person-loving state) that requires employers to provide reasonable accommodation to employees or applicants who experience limitations arising from or related to pregnancy, childbirth, or "related medical conditions." The statute defines "related medical conditions" to include "miscarriage, stillbirth, having or choosing not to have an abortion." The PWFA is based on the Americans with Disabilities Act and, like the ADA, allows employers to weasel out by showing undue hardship. The EEOC issued a 408 page (!, but that's kind of typical of important regulations) final regulation that says, in so many words, that it does not regulate abortion or affect when abortion is permitted; the PWFA doesn't require anyone to have or not have an abortion, and doesn't compel unwilling providers to perform abortions.
A typical thing that happens ALL THE DAMN TIME is that the federal government issues progressive, pro-existing-humans regulation, which immediately get tied up in court, and frequently get overturned. Frequently, the miserable SOBs in question are the Chamber of Commerce and other business groups, for commerce-and employment regulations. In this case, it's a group of 17 state Attorneys General, who brought a suit in the District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. The caption of the case is States of Tennessee et al v. EEOC, No. 2:24-CV-00084 (filed E.D. Ark. Apr. 25, 2024).
Tip o' the hat to Gerald Maatman and Christian Palacios, who alerted me to this case. You can find their May 16 article, "State AGs Sue EEOC for Abortion-Related Accommodation Requirements in PWFA Final Rule" by searching Lexology.com or their law firm, Duane Morris LLP's, website. They say that the AGs (from Tennessee, Arkansas, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Utah, and West Virginia said that the EEOC rule is improper because "a bare 3-2 majority of unelected commissioners at the EEOC seeks to hijack these new protections for pregnancies by requiring employers to accommodate workers' abortions--something Congress did not authorize."
This is obvious nonsense, because administrative agencies are not elected any more than Supreme Court justices are. The complaint raises the charge (familiar to administrative law nerds everywhere) that the regulation violates the Administrative Procedure Act. The complaint also says that the PWFA final rules conflict the federal statutory ban on abortion funding, and is unconstitutional under a laundry list of generalities. Picking out intelligent arguments in this farrago is like proofreading a bowl of Cheerios, but it should be noted that the PWFA does not provide even one nickel of federal funding to anybody or provide any federal funding for abortions. (BTW, the Hyde Amendment just says that the federal government can't give state Medicaid programs money to provide abortions, not that state Medicaid agencies can't use state funds to provide abortions. This is kind of like saying that if you put your Christmas check from Aunt Agnes in your coat pocket and your paycheck in your pants pocket, you can't use Aunt Agnes' money to pay your telephone bill. The phone company is not trembling in fear, you still have your pants pocket.) Maatman and Palacios warn that if this gaggle of AGs wins the case, "it could serve as a basis for challenging the Commission's ability to enforce and promulgate future rules relating to the other federal antidiscrimination statutes the EEOC enforces."
Zagorski told The Times-Picayune/The New Orleans Advocate , “the pills are available without proof of identity and in bulk, opening the door for sex traffickers or predators of any kind to abuse them, harming women and girls in Louisiana.”
So they WANT girls pregnant by traffickers????? That seems to what they are implying.
What a load of lies and attempted fear mongering. The twisting of the words and the truth are so palatable with these extremists. If Louisiana gave a shit about stopping traffickers and predators, they'd already be doing it. Instead the MAJORITY of their time in state legislature is spent putting forward bills and laws that restrict women, outlaw abortion even for rape & incest and putting the ten commandment in public schools.
I’m wondering what would happen to any trafficked victims if they fall pregnant. Coat hangers? Murder? They sure as hell aren’t going to get medical care.
That second trimester language in South Dakota is odd. There are no such thing as abortion regulations 'that are reasonably related to the physical health of the pregnant woman.' But if that makes it an easier sell to the voters, okay I guess?
I hope that Colorado wins. I wonder if they define abortion in their text. Ohio shows how these things need to be ironclad. I’m confident antis will redefine it to suit their whims.
These people are strategic. They've waited 50 years to unleash their terror on us. They'll wait until they have a case they like. A rare case where something went wrong - rare complications of the medication, or it got into an abuser's hands. A case that's not like 99.99% of the experiences of using abortion medication. And then they'll pounce, and say it's all like that, or that it could be.
"Indeed, earlier this month, Erin Hawley with the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) told NBC News, 'States have a duty to protect their most vulnerable citizens and their families from harm.'"
Did everybody see 👀 😳 that Jessica said she made a boo-boo. For shame 😔. How the Mighty have fallen. 😃😃😃😃😃😃😃😜😜😜😜😜😜🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪😝😝😝😝😛😛😛😛😇😇😇🥰🥰🥰😍😍😍. Kidding of course. You kick ass my lady. May the wicked be vanquished.
Self-described “pro-lifers” tell us their anti-abortion laws are working as intended. They say this after they hear the same horror stories the rest of us hear. They don’t want to fix the mess they have created, they want it to continue.
This means “pro-lifers” are fine with letting women suffer, risk permanent impairment, and death. In fact, they tell us they want a national ban on abortions — so they want more horror inflicted on pregnant women.
So now when I hear any one call themself “pro-life” I know what they really mean: let women suffer and die.
I'm with Jenifer Rubin on this, they are, and always will be, the party of forced birth.
What I find particularly galling about the rhetoric from forced birthers is that they always claim to be "protecting women," when in fact their laws are inflicting grievous harm on women all around the country. Infuriating.
I don’t understand why the AMA isn’t fighting harder for their turf. When it suits the government to use doctors in their explanation for imposing medical intervention (like certain c-section rulings or vaccinations) they don’t hesitate to do it. But if it doesn’t suit them, they imply that doctors’ evaluations of risks and needs for treatment can’t be trusted and only the government can make the determination. It’s bonkers.
Re the AMA, I learned recently how instrumental this org was in its earliest days (founded in 1847) in bringing about more restrictive anti-abortion laws. The two most recent biographies of Madame Restell, the pseudonym of New York's leading abortion/contraception provider in the 19th century, both explain the sad role of AMA and male physicians in pushing midwives and female medical practitioners out of the field, using moralistic views on abortion as a smokescreen (Granted, women could not attend medical school at the time, so they had to be self-taught, and schools of the era were grossly inadequate).
Recommended reading: "Madame Restell: The Life, Death and Resurrection of Old New York's Most Fabulous, Fearless and Infamous Abortionist," by Jennifer Wright and "The Trials of Madame Restell: 19th Century America's Most Infamous Female Physician and the Campaign to Make Abortion a Crime," by Nicholas L. Syrett.
Thanks, I'll look for it!
Chris Hayes’ podcast “Why is This Happening” did one of his shows about her if you’d like a 1 hour quick listen on her.
Let me get this straight… One of the arguments they are using against the mailing of abortion medication is that traffickers will use it on innocent women and girls who have been trafficked. They are saying that it’s preferable for trafficking victims to carry pregnancies that are a result of forced sex, aka rape? What do they imagine will happen to a trafficked female who becomes pregnant? Do they imagine they will be given medical care? Do they think they will be allowed to keep any child that might survive? Or does that become another income stream…black market babies? Have they thought their argument through?
They want those babies, that is why they have taken over the adoption agencies in many states. Remember all the babies that they 'lost" from the border? I will bet you anything they were trafficked through Betsy DeVos's adoption agency that she is an investor in.
Jessica, (you may have already seen it), tweet from yesterday:
https://x.com/TheRyanHamilton/status/1792504436335456421
Ryan Hamilton
@TheRyanHamilton
My heart is broken💔: As friends & family know, my wife was pregnant with our 2nd child, & about to begin her 2nd trimester. A few days ago she had severe pains, & bleeding, and had to go to the emergency room. There, it was discovered that our baby no longer had a heartbeat. Devastated doesn't come close to what that feels like.
Unfortunately for people like us, because of the current laws in the state of Texas, that was only the beginning of this nightmare. Jess (my wife) had an "incomplete miscarriage", and what needed to happen, what was best for HER, and her health, was to terminate the pregnancy, and get the baby out.
The doctor gave her a medication that would move this process along, and sent her home. Where, apparently we would be handling it ourselves. We were told it might take a couple of attempts before it worked.
I'll let you decide how you feel about that. (continued... in the tweet)
it's just so fucking wrong.
ADF is quoted here as saying “States have a duty to protect their most vulnerable citizens and their families from harm.” I agree! And the truth is that you are not a citizen until birth according to the 14th Amendment.
This means that the government must value the freedoms and rights of a woman over that of a fetus inside the woman. Private citizens can still try to convince others not to have an abortion but the power of government cannot be used without violating the Constitution.
It looks like Minnesota has a ballot initiative on the ERA for 2026, no? Maybe that was the backup plan, I don't know.
Can Ben Carson's nose get any browner???
No
Oops! I was thinking wasn't he dead of covid, but no, that was Herman Cain.
I get the toads mixed up, too.
Isn't it ironic Herman (a die hard republican) that would have downplayed and insulted covid safety policies, DIED from covid?? Just sayin.....
So did the co-founder of the "Turning point" Charlie kirk hate-mongering org that tries to turn college kids into magats.
Trying again--my previous comment was eaten. The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act is a federal statute that, in most of the US (it's been partially enjoined in Texas, that notably pregnant-person-loving state) that requires employers to provide reasonable accommodation to employees or applicants who experience limitations arising from or related to pregnancy, childbirth, or "related medical conditions." The statute defines "related medical conditions" to include "miscarriage, stillbirth, having or choosing not to have an abortion." The PWFA is based on the Americans with Disabilities Act and, like the ADA, allows employers to weasel out by showing undue hardship. The EEOC issued a 408 page (!, but that's kind of typical of important regulations) final regulation that says, in so many words, that it does not regulate abortion or affect when abortion is permitted; the PWFA doesn't require anyone to have or not have an abortion, and doesn't compel unwilling providers to perform abortions.
A typical thing that happens ALL THE DAMN TIME is that the federal government issues progressive, pro-existing-humans regulation, which immediately get tied up in court, and frequently get overturned. Frequently, the miserable SOBs in question are the Chamber of Commerce and other business groups, for commerce-and employment regulations. In this case, it's a group of 17 state Attorneys General, who brought a suit in the District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. The caption of the case is States of Tennessee et al v. EEOC, No. 2:24-CV-00084 (filed E.D. Ark. Apr. 25, 2024).
Tip o' the hat to Gerald Maatman and Christian Palacios, who alerted me to this case. You can find their May 16 article, "State AGs Sue EEOC for Abortion-Related Accommodation Requirements in PWFA Final Rule" by searching Lexology.com or their law firm, Duane Morris LLP's, website. They say that the AGs (from Tennessee, Arkansas, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Utah, and West Virginia said that the EEOC rule is improper because "a bare 3-2 majority of unelected commissioners at the EEOC seeks to hijack these new protections for pregnancies by requiring employers to accommodate workers' abortions--something Congress did not authorize."
This is obvious nonsense, because administrative agencies are not elected any more than Supreme Court justices are. The complaint raises the charge (familiar to administrative law nerds everywhere) that the regulation violates the Administrative Procedure Act. The complaint also says that the PWFA final rules conflict the federal statutory ban on abortion funding, and is unconstitutional under a laundry list of generalities. Picking out intelligent arguments in this farrago is like proofreading a bowl of Cheerios, but it should be noted that the PWFA does not provide even one nickel of federal funding to anybody or provide any federal funding for abortions. (BTW, the Hyde Amendment just says that the federal government can't give state Medicaid programs money to provide abortions, not that state Medicaid agencies can't use state funds to provide abortions. This is kind of like saying that if you put your Christmas check from Aunt Agnes in your coat pocket and your paycheck in your pants pocket, you can't use Aunt Agnes' money to pay your telephone bill. The phone company is not trembling in fear, you still have your pants pocket.) Maatman and Palacios warn that if this gaggle of AGs wins the case, "it could serve as a basis for challenging the Commission's ability to enforce and promulgate future rules relating to the other federal antidiscrimination statutes the EEOC enforces."
Are they using our tax dollars to bring these dastardly suits? Talk about adding insult to injury!
They're using our tax dollars to pass inequitable statutes too!
Anybody know the backstory to this hearing from Jan 21, 2024 and what the guy in the video is saying?
{see CSPAN video in tweet}
Gene Trevino
@GenoVeno73
🚨 REMINDER FOR THE LADIES 🚨
WATCH and listen to Rev. Robert Schenck tell how Evangelicals all over the country met with @GOP
@HouseGOP
@SenateGOP
members to plot with the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v Wade. And they called it "Operation Higher Court."
VOTE ACCORDINGLY!
https://x.com/GenoVeno73/status/1749172226417479717
A deal with the Devil, indeed. May they rot in Hell.
Zagorski told The Times-Picayune/The New Orleans Advocate , “the pills are available without proof of identity and in bulk, opening the door for sex traffickers or predators of any kind to abuse them, harming women and girls in Louisiana.”
So they WANT girls pregnant by traffickers????? That seems to what they are implying.
What a load of lies and attempted fear mongering. The twisting of the words and the truth are so palatable with these extremists. If Louisiana gave a shit about stopping traffickers and predators, they'd already be doing it. Instead the MAJORITY of their time in state legislature is spent putting forward bills and laws that restrict women, outlaw abortion even for rape & incest and putting the ten commandment in public schools.
I’m wondering what would happen to any trafficked victims if they fall pregnant. Coat hangers? Murder? They sure as hell aren’t going to get medical care.
They'd sell the result to some horrible abuser, no doubt.
Or Suicide.....
All bad outcomes for something that should not have happened in the first place.
That second trimester language in South Dakota is odd. There are no such thing as abortion regulations 'that are reasonably related to the physical health of the pregnant woman.' But if that makes it an easier sell to the voters, okay I guess?
I hope that Colorado wins. I wonder if they define abortion in their text. Ohio shows how these things need to be ironclad. I’m confident antis will redefine it to suit their whims.
I don't see how that could possibly work, for them to succeed in prosecuting out of state providers. There's no way.
These people are strategic. They've waited 50 years to unleash their terror on us. They'll wait until they have a case they like. A rare case where something went wrong - rare complications of the medication, or it got into an abuser's hands. A case that's not like 99.99% of the experiences of using abortion medication. And then they'll pounce, and say it's all like that, or that it could be.
"Indeed, earlier this month, Erin Hawley with the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) told NBC News, 'States have a duty to protect their most vulnerable citizens and their families from harm.'"
The zygote is now a citizen.
In their head, yes. They just have to force it into law.
Nope. Against the 14th Amendment. Or will the SCOTUS look for historical traditions and ignore the Constitution yet again?
Pretty soon it will be a citizen before it's even ejaculated!
That would mean men’s bodies would have to be regulated and we know that would never happen.
I was pretty much just being a smarty pants with my comment - illustrating how regressive this country has gotten.
Yeah, Men will never be regulated - women are more regulated than guns.
Did everybody see 👀 😳 that Jessica said she made a boo-boo. For shame 😔. How the Mighty have fallen. 😃😃😃😃😃😃😃😜😜😜😜😜😜🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪😝😝😝😝😛😛😛😛😇😇😇🥰🥰🥰😍😍😍. Kidding of course. You kick ass my lady. May the wicked be vanquished.