You'll notice that the paper was not in a reputable journal anyone had ever heard of.
If the courts seem to be mired in the nineteenth or even eighteenth century, they should be reminded repeatedly that in those eras, abortions were attempted with a variety of herbal and chemical concoctions of varying efficacy. It was impossible to tell if a person who didn't want to be pregnant miscarried spontaneously after taking these potions, or whether an abortion was actually induced. Procedural abortions were performed before germ theory was known. So early abortion bans were actually based on the safety of the pregnant person, or what we might call consumer protection, rather than on any concern for the sacredness of embryonic life.
Monica Hesse is under appreciated by the WAPO bosses. Her cogent columns are in the Style section, which has become the section I read (and the Metro). Her, she nails Kavanaugh and shows Kamala at her usual best.
Did anyone see the little writeup in the New York Times of Doug Emhoff visiting the abortion clinic in Washington (suburbs) today? The picture of him is fabulous. The look on his face. It floored me so much -- that she sent the potential "first gentleman" to an abortion clinic! I love it so much!!!
"We’re here because of the former president,” Mr. Emhoff said, condemning what he referred to as the “post-Dobbs hellscape that Donald Trump created.”
I've been following Jessica for a year and have yet to see any mention about the Dublin Declaration that is the origin of the extremist belief that abortion is never medically necessary. I've been trying to email her about it but I'm sure she's crazy busy. I attached a very good article from the National Library of Medicine site on its history.
The Dublin Declaration on Maternal Health Care and Anti-Abortion Activism
As much a Biden's decision was super difficult and gutwrenching, his timing was perfect. The Republicans were caught totally off-guard and were way overconfident. Thus, the Vance VP disastrous pick.
Agreed. What I think really caught (almost) everyone off guard - especially Republicans and the media - was how united, prepared, and disciplined the Democratic party was immediately after the announcement. And that's going to persist. It's almost like we knew what we were doing and were planning the whole time ;)
Thank you Jessica. I am hopeful that the wave of enthusiasm will continue. For myself I feel it is about time a woman such as Kamala is running for president. I am sick of tired of having men even good men be in positions of power. There is still so much misogyny and patriarchal constructs in society. I am 63 and things have changed but NOT enough especially for marginalized communities. The future is Feminine! To clarify what I mean is feminism is about all genders having equal rights and opportunities. Equanimity
We recently confirmed that the birth rate went up in every state with a ban, correct? Meaning women were not able to get reproductive health care they needed, or they chose not to seek it due to fear, pressure, etc.
This effect ought to be temporary. If these laws persist, it will be negated and outweighed by a decreased willingness among women to voluntarily become pregnant. That's certainly my gut reaction to something like Jessica's piece today on c-sections. Women and their partners will increasingly decide that having kids just isn't worth the risk. And that's the correct and expected response to severely diminished reproductive health care.
You can't take away women's freedom to not have children without also taking away their freedom to have children. But then taking away freedom is the whole, and only, point.
I've read that some young women are choosing to have their tubes tied, but I can tell you from experience of myself and others, that it is almost impossible to find a doctor that will do that when you are single and under 30.
Granted, I wanted it done back 40 years ago, was turned down by 3 doctors.
"Oh, you're not married? What if you change your mind (40 years later, no kids)? What if the man you marry wants kids (then he won't be marrying me, will he)?"
With C-sections being touted as normal and fine to do in place of abortion, I am sure we would all like to hear from an expert as to how this affects a woman's future fertility as in how many c-sections is she 'allowed' therefore determining how many children she can have. Another area I would like to hear more specifics about is the effect on a girl's body when she carries a fetus to term. Details like that help us have specifics to talk about. How it's not 'just having a baby.'
I always thought it was 3, but this article says: "For example, the more C-sections you have, the more likely you are to have a uterine rupture. With each C-section, there's a higher chance of scar tissue buildup, heavy bleeding, and problems with the placenta."
Finally! I am excited and hopeful. Even though I live in the bleak hellscape of Iowa! I know Kamala will win and bring a close to this dreadful needless suffering.
With luck reproductive health care will at least be made legal in every state bordering Iowa, as three of them are already free states and the other three have referenda in November.
You'll notice that the paper was not in a reputable journal anyone had ever heard of.
If the courts seem to be mired in the nineteenth or even eighteenth century, they should be reminded repeatedly that in those eras, abortions were attempted with a variety of herbal and chemical concoctions of varying efficacy. It was impossible to tell if a person who didn't want to be pregnant miscarried spontaneously after taking these potions, or whether an abortion was actually induced. Procedural abortions were performed before germ theory was known. So early abortion bans were actually based on the safety of the pregnant person, or what we might call consumer protection, rather than on any concern for the sacredness of embryonic life.
Hell yessss for Kamala and the amazing timing of this. I love that because they picked Vance they are now unable to squirm out of abortion issues.
Also - I love the activists who chose the name “Arkansans for Limited Government”. Brilliant.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/power/2024/07/22/kamala-harris-brett-kavanaugh/
Monica Hesse is under appreciated by the WAPO bosses. Her cogent columns are in the Style section, which has become the section I read (and the Metro). Her, she nails Kavanaugh and shows Kamala at her usual best.
She's one of the few good ones left there, and Jen Rubin, ofcourse.
I love Charley the chat box. Read about it and spread the word!!!
💙
Did anyone see the little writeup in the New York Times of Doug Emhoff visiting the abortion clinic in Washington (suburbs) today? The picture of him is fabulous. The look on his face. It floored me so much -- that she sent the potential "first gentleman" to an abortion clinic! I love it so much!!!
"We’re here because of the former president,” Mr. Emhoff said, condemning what he referred to as the “post-Dobbs hellscape that Donald Trump created.”
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/07/23/us/harris-trump-news-election-biden?searchResultPosition=2#doug-emhoff-attacks-trump-over-abortion-during-visit-to-virginia-clinic
I've been following Jessica for a year and have yet to see any mention about the Dublin Declaration that is the origin of the extremist belief that abortion is never medically necessary. I've been trying to email her about it but I'm sure she's crazy busy. I attached a very good article from the National Library of Medicine site on its history.
The Dublin Declaration on Maternal Health Care and Anti-Abortion Activism
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5473037/
I wondered vwhere that non-medically sound argument came from.
Jessica, I think you need to take some credit for this focus on abortion and repro health, too.
Your newsletters are the best.
Thanks to everyone working so hard to claw back our rights from the Republicans!!
anybody wanna bet Vance has a Damascus moment and wiggles on Abortion.
aw, no takers...😎
As much a Biden's decision was super difficult and gutwrenching, his timing was perfect. The Republicans were caught totally off-guard and were way overconfident. Thus, the Vance VP disastrous pick.
Agreed. What I think really caught (almost) everyone off guard - especially Republicans and the media - was how united, prepared, and disciplined the Democratic party was immediately after the announcement. And that's going to persist. It's almost like we knew what we were doing and were planning the whole time ;)
There really is something uncanny about it.
She's so beyond qualified and right for this moment, there's no way anyone else would fit the bill.
Thank you Jessica. I am hopeful that the wave of enthusiasm will continue. For myself I feel it is about time a woman such as Kamala is running for president. I am sick of tired of having men even good men be in positions of power. There is still so much misogyny and patriarchal constructs in society. I am 63 and things have changed but NOT enough especially for marginalized communities. The future is Feminine! To clarify what I mean is feminism is about all genders having equal rights and opportunities. Equanimity
Amen!
NOT GOING BACK! NOT GOING BACK! *incoherent fangirl screaming*
*holds your hand up in the air, and chants with you*
We recently confirmed that the birth rate went up in every state with a ban, correct? Meaning women were not able to get reproductive health care they needed, or they chose not to seek it due to fear, pressure, etc.
This effect ought to be temporary. If these laws persist, it will be negated and outweighed by a decreased willingness among women to voluntarily become pregnant. That's certainly my gut reaction to something like Jessica's piece today on c-sections. Women and their partners will increasingly decide that having kids just isn't worth the risk. And that's the correct and expected response to severely diminished reproductive health care.
You can't take away women's freedom to not have children without also taking away their freedom to have children. But then taking away freedom is the whole, and only, point.
I've read that some young women are choosing to have their tubes tied, but I can tell you from experience of myself and others, that it is almost impossible to find a doctor that will do that when you are single and under 30.
Granted, I wanted it done back 40 years ago, was turned down by 3 doctors.
"Oh, you're not married? What if you change your mind (40 years later, no kids)? What if the man you marry wants kids (then he won't be marrying me, will he)?"
Women are STILL going through this.
With C-sections being touted as normal and fine to do in place of abortion, I am sure we would all like to hear from an expert as to how this affects a woman's future fertility as in how many c-sections is she 'allowed' therefore determining how many children she can have. Another area I would like to hear more specifics about is the effect on a girl's body when she carries a fetus to term. Details like that help us have specifics to talk about. How it's not 'just having a baby.'
I always thought it was 3, but this article says: "For example, the more C-sections you have, the more likely you are to have a uterine rupture. With each C-section, there's a higher chance of scar tissue buildup, heavy bleeding, and problems with the placenta."
https://healthcare.utah.edu/womens-health/pregnancy-birth/multiple-c-sections#:~:text=For%20example%2C%20the%20more%20C,and%20problems%20with%20the%20placenta.
Finally! I am excited and hopeful. Even though I live in the bleak hellscape of Iowa! I know Kamala will win and bring a close to this dreadful needless suffering.
With luck reproductive health care will at least be made legal in every state bordering Iowa, as three of them are already free states and the other three have referenda in November.