Preach! It sends me into a rage when I consider the fact that any adult human being thinks they belong inside a pregnant women's body with her. Who raised these morons?
Nikki Haley is in hot water for saying civil war was all about freedom from government. Someone should ask her next what about women's freedom? These people are shameless and dishonest. Another blight on Indian community.
I came on here to see if anyone had posted about Haley’s comments. I don’t tend to group a whole segment of society to one person. And you are certainly more honest than she is btw. She walked herself right into a corner with that answer & set herself up for a follow up abortion question. Wonder what the background is of the person who asked that question. Seemed well researched based on old comments that have now surfaced. Too bad the follow up question wasn’t about abortion. A missed opportunity which leads me to wonder if it wasn’t planted by an R group.
Maybe one of us should make a trip to NH or Iowa and ask her that question -- 'you sounded so poetic about individual freedom and liberty and all that jazz when asked about the civil war, what about women and their reproductive freedom?' and don't just accept whatever BS she spews next.
This is not a comment on the article, but just an alert that the Washington Post today Dec. 28 published a list of 23 good things that happened in 2023 but failed to mention the abortion-rights-fueled elections wins. I set them straight with a comment on their website. If you like the comment it will amplify it. (I am sure that WaPo ownership by Jeff Bezos has nothing to do with what they put on their list.)
Great article! Jezebel's interview with you is, in my opinion, the best thing they've ever done, and I share it regularly, and I just shared this one. I've appreciated following you on twitter.
All the examples in the post resonated with me. I’m not sure how that would look in practice. I would love to see examples and proposals with explainers on what it improves and how.
I saw that too. I continue to feel it is very important for Biden to find a lane that he can vocally support from his heart. It seems he could use some education as well in order to get there. At the least, he needs to bring up SCOTUS appointments because the electorate really needs to tune into that.
This is a bit off topic, but if not just Biden, but ALL Democrats don’t lay down the law to Israel to stop the indiscriminate bombing & slaughter of Palestinians (stop sending more 2000 lb dumb bombs) then they are going to lose elections up & down the ballot. Many large blocs of voters feel extremely strongly about the inequities of that war.
Agree. His surrogates at least have to start talking about SCOTUS opening in the next four years, Dobbs, and really leading the voters about what is happening around the country with the Rs and what they are responsible for. We know media does an inadequate job and voters are bewildered and appreciate some direction. Harris is fine but we need someone who can articulate vociferously and easily -- oh boy, is there a Democratic Liz Cheney out there, somewhere? But at this point the plan needs to be simple, vote blue all the way.
Harris will be good, no doubt, but she’s not the Presidential candidate. It’s that simple for me. He could appeal to the Catholics for choice and other religious people who are also for choice. That could be his lane. The kitchen table issues of it all being about the economy changed with Dobbs. It’s not just about the economy, although that is very high up there and obviously cannot be ignored. But not being able to get on the choice bandwagon in a pro-active way will not help him, in my opinion. It could be as simple as not criminalizing doctors or pregnant women, in addition to SCOTUS.
(a) In this section, "viable" means that stage when, in the best medical judgment of the attending physician based on the particular facts of the case before the physician, there is a reasonable likelihood of the fetus's sustained survival outside the womb.
(b) Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, the State may not interfere with the decision of a woman to terminate a pregnancy:
(1) Before the fetus is viable; or
(2) At any time during the woman's pregnancy, if:
(i) The termination procedure is necessary to protect the life or health of the woman; or
(ii) The fetus is affected by genetic defect or serious deformity or abnormality.
(c) The Department may adopt regulations that:
(1) Are both necessary and the least intrusive method to protect the life or health of the woman; and
(2) Are not inconsistent with established medical practice.
(d) The physician is not liable for civil damages or subject to a criminal penalty for a decision to perform an abortion under this section made in good faith and in the physician's best medical judgment in accordance with accepted standards of medical practice
Under this rule, abortions after viability are regulated. However, both viability and the medical need for an abortion are up to the physician's judgment. The physician is protected from liability if the physician acts in good faith and in accordance with accepted standards of medical practice. Is there evidence that this rule is impeding abortion practice in Maryland? If not, one additional reason beyond the wording of the law may be that prosecutors in Maryland would be extremely unlikely to bring a prosecution unless there was an egregious violation of the law by a doctor. Doctors in Maryland therefore likely feel pretty safe in providing abortions. I acknowledge that in a red state if one is talking about what the language of a constitutional amendment protecting abortion rights, the Maryland language may not be sufficient to give comfort to doctors, because prosecutorial restraint is not something one can assume. Nevertheless, it should be possible to draft language to achieve such comfort, for example, by rewriting the last paragraph to say: " The physician is not liable for civil damages or subject to a criminal penalty for a decision to perform an abortion unless the physician intentionally or recklessly disregarded the provisions of this subtitle." Under this wording, there would have to be a showing of recklessness, going beyond negligence. That is a narrower rule for liability than for malpractice generally.
Thank you so very much Victor for this information. Since the landscape is already set then the fight most likely ( in my opinion) is a legal battle. This is the constructs established for many years. Appreciate your input and providing the legal verbiage that is a solution to protect doctors in Red states like mine Texas.
Now to vote for people who support that reform. Baby steps….
The notorious dystopian nightmares that have been visited upon intentional pregnancies makes clear that the state cannot be trusted to police a line that even medical providers sometimes wrestle with.
Yes, yes, yes! Thanks for articulating this so clearly. Was just discussing anti-choice initiatives with my parents, 91 and 98 yrs old, and they vehemently agree! Government should stay out of abortion entirely. I've mentioned in these comments before, and my dad brought it up again today, that my grandma had 4 abortions back in the late 1920s & 1930s. The 4 kids they already had were enough during the Depression. My grandma had access bc her sister's husband was a doctor, and he did this for many women in their very religious community.
Wonderful piece! Keep the government out of pregnancy. Well said. And I ponder the next step. How does one start a movement that promotes keeping the government and laws off people’s bodies? Abolish bans and abolish government involvement altogether.
I get why people are enshrining abortion in their constitution. It’s damage control. There is a lot of damage control out there. A natural reaction and needed response. There needs to be creative ways around the horrific injuries happening now.
We’re talking about a mindset of bodily autonomy and reproductive justice. The approach has to change. I don’t have the answers.
As I pondered my comment I thought, "How realistic is it and what are the chances of success of keeping the government out of pregnancy altogether?" I recalled reading an article about the Netherlands and abortion stigma. They have the most progressive abortion laws. Yes laws... With the mindset of our country? hmm Jeepers... even a progressive country like that has the government involved in pregnancy. 😮 just wanted to share. I've attached a link about the abortion stigma that exists in a progressive country like the Netherlands.
I have not been shy about sharing my own experience here. In at least 1980s India, the government didn't care at all when I went to a doctor and said I am not ready for this and I went to the doctor days after I missed my period, less than 6 weeks. There was nothing on the books, no laws nothing (I don't think I even thought about it being an issue), but the first doctor said she won't do it because of her own personal reasons but the second doctor (who had incidentally delivered my sister's baby) agreed when I told her that I had career ambitions and a child would get in the way -- her response was 'women always have babies but how many are this desirous of a career and doing something with their intellect.' Apparently, there are now some laws there also but nobody enforces it. During the 70s when Indira Gandhi went rogue and instituted what you might call Martial law, her son went around the country sterilizing people that enraged voters and she lost power when she called an election next. People don't want restrictions either way.
Government can leave you alone if they wanted to, if the people representing you are benevolent, understanding, or simply don't care or not interested in this issue. So, how do we make these malicious and cruel people not care about this issue and leave women alone? Not elect malicious and cruel people, eh?
well said and thank you for sharing Padma. Great question "How do we make these malicious and cruel people not care about this issue and leave women alone? Not elect malicious and cruel people, eh?" Good point. Ah if it was only that simple hmm. It certainly is a great place to start. Appreciate you being part of this community.
You asked "How realistic is it and what are the chances of success of keeping the government out of pregnancy altogether?" and it dawned on me that that was exactly my experience. But things in India are loosey-goosey and sometimes it works to our advantage. This 'rule of law' notion is a double edged sword.
Good on you both.👏. Prior to the article, I thought that the liberal European countries had no restrictions. Boy, that article blew that up. Are there any countries that truly have no restrictions of any kind whatsoever?
I’m glad to see another piece advocating for no involvement of government in pregnancy. I’m not the least bit interested in settling for the codification of Roe. I want codification of the Equal Rights Amendment that guarantees to women the same rights American men enjoy, including the right to make their own medical decisions.
Also, full ADA back-disabled people deserve full protection and rights.
The chilling already hit disabled community though it’s not been in news much. Woman arrested because her husband committed suicide due to being medically abandoned. Law enforcement doesn’t belong in medical decisions.
A woman's pregnancy is not a person deserving the protection of the law. Until this idea is exposed as a religious conviction without any real medical, moral or legal legitimacy, the right to abortion will never be safe. This is why Roe v. Wade was doomed to fail from the beginning and led to the anti-abortion terrorism that ushered in the Dobbs decision.
Since no one knows when conception actually takes place, how would age be determined if life begins at conception? Currently a person's age begins to be counted when the infant emerges from the womb.
Fantastic article 👏 👍 👌. Many links I have to click. Prior to reading this, I read a substack piece about Substackers against nazis. Haunting similarities.
Preach! It sends me into a rage when I consider the fact that any adult human being thinks they belong inside a pregnant women's body with her. Who raised these morons?
Nikki Haley is in hot water for saying civil war was all about freedom from government. Someone should ask her next what about women's freedom? These people are shameless and dishonest. Another blight on Indian community.
I came on here to see if anyone had posted about Haley’s comments. I don’t tend to group a whole segment of society to one person. And you are certainly more honest than she is btw. She walked herself right into a corner with that answer & set herself up for a follow up abortion question. Wonder what the background is of the person who asked that question. Seemed well researched based on old comments that have now surfaced. Too bad the follow up question wasn’t about abortion. A missed opportunity which leads me to wonder if it wasn’t planted by an R group.
My exact thought when she said it was about govt being able to tell you what you can & cannot do.
So Nikki, what was that you said about your preference for a national abortion ban?? Hypocrite
Maybe one of us should make a trip to NH or Iowa and ask her that question -- 'you sounded so poetic about individual freedom and liberty and all that jazz when asked about the civil war, what about women and their reproductive freedom?' and don't just accept whatever BS she spews next.
This is not a comment on the article, but just an alert that the Washington Post today Dec. 28 published a list of 23 good things that happened in 2023 but failed to mention the abortion-rights-fueled elections wins. I set them straight with a comment on their website. If you like the comment it will amplify it. (I am sure that WaPo ownership by Jeff Bezos has nothing to do with what they put on their list.)
Great article! Jezebel's interview with you is, in my opinion, the best thing they've ever done, and I share it regularly, and I just shared this one. I've appreciated following you on twitter.
Thank you so much for reading and sharing!
Ah, a Twitx stalker 🤔. Kidding. I miss the old Jezebel, especially Sue's News.'
All the examples in the post resonated with me. I’m not sure how that would look in practice. I would love to see examples and proposals with explainers on what it improves and how.
Having the govt completely out of pregnancy & women’s reproductive healthcare, improves the lives of every living human on earth.
Harris is going to campaign on this issue starting in Jan... as heard on Lawrence.
I saw that too. I continue to feel it is very important for Biden to find a lane that he can vocally support from his heart. It seems he could use some education as well in order to get there. At the least, he needs to bring up SCOTUS appointments because the electorate really needs to tune into that.
This is a bit off topic, but if not just Biden, but ALL Democrats don’t lay down the law to Israel to stop the indiscriminate bombing & slaughter of Palestinians (stop sending more 2000 lb dumb bombs) then they are going to lose elections up & down the ballot. Many large blocs of voters feel extremely strongly about the inequities of that war.
Agree. His surrogates at least have to start talking about SCOTUS opening in the next four years, Dobbs, and really leading the voters about what is happening around the country with the Rs and what they are responsible for. We know media does an inadequate job and voters are bewildered and appreciate some direction. Harris is fine but we need someone who can articulate vociferously and easily -- oh boy, is there a Democratic Liz Cheney out there, somewhere? But at this point the plan needs to be simple, vote blue all the way.
Harris will be good, no doubt, but she’s not the Presidential candidate. It’s that simple for me. He could appeal to the Catholics for choice and other religious people who are also for choice. That could be his lane. The kitchen table issues of it all being about the economy changed with Dobbs. It’s not just about the economy, although that is very high up there and obviously cannot be ignored. But not being able to get on the choice bandwagon in a pro-active way will not help him, in my opinion. It could be as simple as not criminalizing doctors or pregnant women, in addition to SCOTUS.
This is what Maryland law says:
Maryland Health - General Section 20-209
Article - Health - General
§ 20-209.
(a) In this section, "viable" means that stage when, in the best medical judgment of the attending physician based on the particular facts of the case before the physician, there is a reasonable likelihood of the fetus's sustained survival outside the womb.
(b) Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, the State may not interfere with the decision of a woman to terminate a pregnancy:
(1) Before the fetus is viable; or
(2) At any time during the woman's pregnancy, if:
(i) The termination procedure is necessary to protect the life or health of the woman; or
(ii) The fetus is affected by genetic defect or serious deformity or abnormality.
(c) The Department may adopt regulations that:
(1) Are both necessary and the least intrusive method to protect the life or health of the woman; and
(2) Are not inconsistent with established medical practice.
(d) The physician is not liable for civil damages or subject to a criminal penalty for a decision to perform an abortion under this section made in good faith and in the physician's best medical judgment in accordance with accepted standards of medical practice
Under this rule, abortions after viability are regulated. However, both viability and the medical need for an abortion are up to the physician's judgment. The physician is protected from liability if the physician acts in good faith and in accordance with accepted standards of medical practice. Is there evidence that this rule is impeding abortion practice in Maryland? If not, one additional reason beyond the wording of the law may be that prosecutors in Maryland would be extremely unlikely to bring a prosecution unless there was an egregious violation of the law by a doctor. Doctors in Maryland therefore likely feel pretty safe in providing abortions. I acknowledge that in a red state if one is talking about what the language of a constitutional amendment protecting abortion rights, the Maryland language may not be sufficient to give comfort to doctors, because prosecutorial restraint is not something one can assume. Nevertheless, it should be possible to draft language to achieve such comfort, for example, by rewriting the last paragraph to say: " The physician is not liable for civil damages or subject to a criminal penalty for a decision to perform an abortion unless the physician intentionally or recklessly disregarded the provisions of this subtitle." Under this wording, there would have to be a showing of recklessness, going beyond negligence. That is a narrower rule for liability than for malpractice generally.
Thank you so very much Victor for this information. Since the landscape is already set then the fight most likely ( in my opinion) is a legal battle. This is the constructs established for many years. Appreciate your input and providing the legal verbiage that is a solution to protect doctors in Red states like mine Texas.
Now to vote for people who support that reform. Baby steps….
Again thank you!!!
The notorious dystopian nightmares that have been visited upon intentional pregnancies makes clear that the state cannot be trusted to police a line that even medical providers sometimes wrestle with.
This popped up on my insta feed today, so I thought I'd sharw with this amazing community: https://www.instagram.com/reel/C0j-xHxOWNG/?igsh=c3Nsazc0ZWdzNW9m
wow thanks for sharing. That says it all...
Yes, yes, yes! Thanks for articulating this so clearly. Was just discussing anti-choice initiatives with my parents, 91 and 98 yrs old, and they vehemently agree! Government should stay out of abortion entirely. I've mentioned in these comments before, and my dad brought it up again today, that my grandma had 4 abortions back in the late 1920s & 1930s. The 4 kids they already had were enough during the Depression. My grandma had access bc her sister's husband was a doctor, and he did this for many women in their very religious community.
Wonderful piece! Keep the government out of pregnancy. Well said. And I ponder the next step. How does one start a movement that promotes keeping the government and laws off people’s bodies? Abolish bans and abolish government involvement altogether.
I get why people are enshrining abortion in their constitution. It’s damage control. There is a lot of damage control out there. A natural reaction and needed response. There needs to be creative ways around the horrific injuries happening now.
We’re talking about a mindset of bodily autonomy and reproductive justice. The approach has to change. I don’t have the answers.
Looking forward to others comments.
As I pondered my comment I thought, "How realistic is it and what are the chances of success of keeping the government out of pregnancy altogether?" I recalled reading an article about the Netherlands and abortion stigma. They have the most progressive abortion laws. Yes laws... With the mindset of our country? hmm Jeepers... even a progressive country like that has the government involved in pregnancy. 😮 just wanted to share. I've attached a link about the abortion stigma that exists in a progressive country like the Netherlands.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/g5gay7/no-stigma-free-abortions
I have not been shy about sharing my own experience here. In at least 1980s India, the government didn't care at all when I went to a doctor and said I am not ready for this and I went to the doctor days after I missed my period, less than 6 weeks. There was nothing on the books, no laws nothing (I don't think I even thought about it being an issue), but the first doctor said she won't do it because of her own personal reasons but the second doctor (who had incidentally delivered my sister's baby) agreed when I told her that I had career ambitions and a child would get in the way -- her response was 'women always have babies but how many are this desirous of a career and doing something with their intellect.' Apparently, there are now some laws there also but nobody enforces it. During the 70s when Indira Gandhi went rogue and instituted what you might call Martial law, her son went around the country sterilizing people that enraged voters and she lost power when she called an election next. People don't want restrictions either way.
Government can leave you alone if they wanted to, if the people representing you are benevolent, understanding, or simply don't care or not interested in this issue. So, how do we make these malicious and cruel people not care about this issue and leave women alone? Not elect malicious and cruel people, eh?
well said and thank you for sharing Padma. Great question "How do we make these malicious and cruel people not care about this issue and leave women alone? Not elect malicious and cruel people, eh?" Good point. Ah if it was only that simple hmm. It certainly is a great place to start. Appreciate you being part of this community.
You asked "How realistic is it and what are the chances of success of keeping the government out of pregnancy altogether?" and it dawned on me that that was exactly my experience. But things in India are loosey-goosey and sometimes it works to our advantage. This 'rule of law' notion is a double edged sword.
Good on you both.👏. Prior to the article, I thought that the liberal European countries had no restrictions. Boy, that article blew that up. Are there any countries that truly have no restrictions of any kind whatsoever?
Wiki page has info by country:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_law
I’m glad to see another piece advocating for no involvement of government in pregnancy. I’m not the least bit interested in settling for the codification of Roe. I want codification of the Equal Rights Amendment that guarantees to women the same rights American men enjoy, including the right to make their own medical decisions.
Great article.
Thank you and yes!
Also, full ADA back-disabled people deserve full protection and rights.
The chilling already hit disabled community though it’s not been in news much. Woman arrested because her husband committed suicide due to being medically abandoned. Law enforcement doesn’t belong in medical decisions.
A woman's pregnancy is not a person deserving the protection of the law. Until this idea is exposed as a religious conviction without any real medical, moral or legal legitimacy, the right to abortion will never be safe. This is why Roe v. Wade was doomed to fail from the beginning and led to the anti-abortion terrorism that ushered in the Dobbs decision.
I firmly agree with your assessment
Since no one knows when conception actually takes place, how would age be determined if life begins at conception? Currently a person's age begins to be counted when the infant emerges from the womb.
Fantastic article 👏 👍 👌. Many links I have to click. Prior to reading this, I read a substack piece about Substackers against nazis. Haunting similarities.
Excellent! Thanks for posting.
Great work Erika 💛