The suit pointed out, for example, that one section of the statute reads as follows:
“In recognition that Almighty God is the author of life, that all men and women are ‘endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among those are Life.’”
Seems like religious imposition to me! Judge Jason Sengheiser, however, said that there’s similar language in the state constitution and that the rest of the law doesn’t have religious language.
End quote.
There is no such language in the constitution. There is no such language in any US legal documentation except for the Declaration of Independence,
"... to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them ..."
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
In the whole document "the Creator" and "God" are mentioned only once.
It's a reference to the state constitution of Missouri, not the federal constitution. The preamble reads: "We, the people of Missouri, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, and grateful for His goodness, do establish this Constitution for the better government of the state."
The Republican party has become SO RADICAL, on this issue and so many others, and yet the MSM and most voters don't seem to realize it. I wish I knew the solutions, because I don't think the path this country is on is sustainable.
I believe that at some primitive level these men feel threatened by a means of reproduction (IVF) that de-centers their conviction in the holy life-giving penis and their entitlement to sex, while elevating female autonomy. They may realize that enough sperm is frozen in labs to render them completely reproductively unnecessary for years to come. This is the allure of fundamentalist religion's support of men's internalized image of themselves as little gods. This idea results in alternating states of ego inflation and shame for men, when they inevitably fall short. The shame has to be projected outward for them to regain ego stability and the sense of their righteous authority. They dynamic is driven by both magical thinking and childish fear, as anything less could land them in hell. For women in the fundamentalist system, the only ego stabilizing option is to shame and punish other women while becoming psychologically male-identified. This adaptation fuels constant low-grade hatred for oneself and for other women.
And yes a very small number of men can produce enough sperm to go around for the whole species, so most of us are indeed unnecessary. The same will never be said for women, until such time as growing 'test-tube' babies becomes economical. The obvious conclusion is that women are more important than men, and yet our world is structured as if the opposite were true. And that utterly illogical fact never fails to make my head want to explode.
Want a feel good? He is standing up. I hate what he & especially his wife went through. That being said, he’s being a leader. He’s not just taking care of his family, he’s trying to bring awareness that this can & does happen. We need more men like Ryan, but not more horror stories, just strong men who care, actually really care and who aren’t afraid. Calling out the hate and setting them straight. (That could be an ad slogan!)
Don't know if you saw this piece at Slate. Arizona republicans are trying to scrap the way the state Supreme Court works (six year terms after appointment with retention elections, which no judge has ever lost) to appointments during good behavior until retirement at 70. Two conservatives face retention elections in November, and pro-choice groups are eyeing them to try to flip the Court (with democratic governor Hobbs being able to fill the seats if they are not retained). Senate approved it by a single vote (it now goes to voters in November, where it only needs a simple majority). Among the Senators voting in favor was the wife of one of the justices up for retention.
I heard Jake Tapper make a comment today that I hadn’t considered about denying access to IVF.
I don’t recall his exact words. Essentially, Tapper said outlawing IVF doesn’t just restrict women’s reproductive rights; outlawing IVF denies reproductive rights to MEN and women who want to have a family.
It's so hard to believe that people might vote for Trump because prices have gone up some. It'll be worse under his policies! To quote (in a better way) Barry Goldwater: those who give up their rights in hopes of price cuts deserve and get neither.
I'm dumbstruck by this irrational labelling of IVF. The people I know who've used IVF want to have a family and I guess I'm just naive in thinking we should be happy that science has enabled them to do just that. It seems we're becoming Ebeneezer Scrooge-like in our pinched, narrow-minded approach to everyone else's rights and opinions beyond our own.
“Experts at Bloomberg and MSNBC say last week’s SCOTUS decision was a “scolding” to the judges who let the flimsy case get so far; “
I wonder why they think that. After 303 Creative (2023) I don’t see why they would get upset about flimsy cases. Maybe because they keep getting caught flying flags and on undisclosed private jet flights? Or imo because it’s a big election year and they don’t want 2022 again.
In 303 Creative, you could at least make up a reason that there might be standing, the hypothetical nature of the 'harm' actually helped with that. The impact is bad, but isn't going to completely upend anything by itself. There's no universe where those anti-abortion ER doctors had any standing whatsoever. All their bullshit studies had been retracted so they couldn't use a fake science argument. They literally said they have nothing to do with the treatment of abortion patients, they don't prescribe it, and as Coach Kavenaugh said- 'we have strong conscience protections' that mean they aren't forced to have anything to do with abortion patients. Based on that though, I'm expecting the EMTALA decision to be horrendous.
It's not like you could ever make one of those bastards do a procedure they didn't want to do, anyway. They would just call in another doc to do it, That was how they always handled it in the the past. But I've been retired for over a decade.
That also fits with my veteran experience patient-side. Normally if a doctor doesn't want to do something they just don't and I have to find a new doctor, lol.
I just reread some of the mifepristone decision, Coach was explicit about it not being necessary for any individual doctor to do anything, because (and the Government agrees) requirements and regulations are attached to the institutions, not the individual doctors.
He was more upset about losing his softball girls team that he coached, than Christine Blasey-Ford's (no doubt true) account of his rapey behavior. He also introduced them, before he did his wife, so that tells you where she ranks.
I listen to Strict Scrutiny every week and that's what they call him. "Coach Kavenaugh, father of daughters". The nicknames and derision help me manage my terror :D
Which is exactly why they took the case and held it for so long. As Jessica wrote, there are 3 more cases (at least) coming up the pipeline and now they have a better idea of how they will be treated at SCOTUS.
If SCOTUS thought it was flimsy, I wonder why they took the case? Could it be that it gave them an opportunity to instruct how to successfully bring the case back to them?
They are trying to put on many fires, with the asshole republicans killing our rights everyday. They also know that with this repub majority congress they won't have the votes, yet. Never bring a bill up if you don't have the votes. If we all do our part, and get out the vote and give them both the senate and the lower house, they can do that.
I laughed out loud at the title of the newsletter today. Talk about being womb half-empty.
Also, fun fact! Do you know why it's a big sin in the Catholic Church to kill yourself? So feudal peasants wouldn't off themselves after going to church and hearing about how great Heaven is, thus depriving the upper class of their labor. With the rollback of child labor laws, a cynic might think the reason hasn't changed much...
Thanks for this link. I hadn’t seen it. Is there no limit to the premeditated harm being done to women? We need to charge lawmakers with murder when someone dies in one of these hellholes.
That really bothered me. I think it is groundwork for when they require c-sections or labor induction instead of D&Cs or other abortion care for women with dead, dying, or nonviable fetuses.
Are they only for insured patients who are “in-network.” The example provided was a center essentially attached to a hospital with “staff sharing” and emergency care available. So… docs & nurses working at both hospital & birthing center & presumably making more $ with a concrete low risk C-section schedule at birthing center (covered by insurance) for essentially those who have presumably “good insurance.” Yet, it will supposedly be cheaper than a hospital setting and “more comfortable.” I wonder if this will fall under essentially “Concierge Plans” in larger, wealthier cities where there is still limited doctors. Some reporter should be asking which health insurance they take, out of curiosity.
Omg, I saw that yesterday and almost had a stroke. The sheer gall of regulating clinics out of business to "protect" women and now any amoral Private Equity goon in Florida can perform major abdominal surgery? The only person who I know had a scheduled C-section lost over half the blood in her body. Private Equity starving Grandma and Grandpa to death from staffing shortages in nursing homes is bad enough, now they want to do this? Fuck all the ghouls who think this is any kind of solution.
Jessica, is there a way to find out who in the ID legislature used IVF to get pregnant? Or which family members of those in the legislature used IVF? I continually want to ask those who protest against birth control what their birth control they use. Are reporters asking those questions directly?
I have no sympathy for the gop women that lost their primaries, and if the one remaining loses the runoff I don't care. It's been obvious for years now that the gop hates women.
I’m actually surprised at it. Why are voters approving abortion protection amendments in state after state and yet STILL paradoxically voting out women like these, who voted AGAINST the ban, and voting FOR Republicans in their state? It’s just confusing. Maybe voters aren’t making the connection or just voting party line…
I think more emphasis needs to be put nationwide on state candidates and the damage they’re doing to women. Voters can pass all the amendments they want, but with Republican majorities locked up, nothing will really change and they won’t stop their lawless anti-choice agenda.
Because the 30% anti choice voting block goes a long way in voting them out in the primary. Dems not vote switching to save an R state legislator, they are voting for the D candidate they want. Plus, too many non-fanatical Rs don’t think their child or family member will ever be denied miscarriage care & many also think their savings account will be able to “fix it” if they do.
It's all so dystopian--and on top of these indignities it seems that there is a 20% increase in women seeking tubal ligation in the wake of Dobbs. Will the GOP come after sterilization next? Don't be surprised if it does.
I've had a couple friends tell me that their (male) doctor wouldn't "let" them have pregnancy preventive procedures at all or without their husband's permission. This is within the last 30 years. Amazing, right?????
Hmmm. So things haven't changed much on that front. From 1970 (when I was 17) til I went through menopause at 43 in the mid-1990s, I asked every doctor I encountered, in every specialty (relevant or not) to let me get my tubes tied. The excuses were as you describe: you're too young, you'll change your mind, only if you are at least 30 and have at least 3 kids, only if you have your husband's permission, yadda. So basically, no, with contempt either overt or strongly implied. I'd known since I was 10, changing my youngest brother's diapers and getting up at 2 a.m. to feed him, that I didn't want kids--no how, no way. But that made zero difference, because someday I was magically gonna find The Guy, change my mind, start popping out babies, and Fulfill My Destiny. According to those (mostly male) docs. Yeah, as if. Horrible that young women today, more than 50 years later, are still getting that same stupid song and dance.
I had female OBGYNS sing the same song to me in the 90s and 2000s. But they topped it with chances of insurance covering you still taking the pill because of bad periods was zero.
I had to hear that crap, too until I changed to have a woman GYN. Then it stopped. I know some lovely male GYNs that I worked with that weren't like that. Mostly from up north.
Mostly I ended up with male gyns simply because (this will sound so odd) when I started college in 1970, I had never met a female doctor. At all. I had vaguely heard that such rare creatures existed--but had never met one and never actually expected to. This was in the SF Bay Area. I grew up about 7 miles from UC Berkeley. Even after that, still in California, female gyns were thin on the ground up to the 2010s. The few who were around shared the prejudices of their male counterparts, and acted accordingly. (Except, of course, in free-standing clinics that offered birth control and abortions. I specifically went to a couple of those clinics and didn't get as easily dismissed.) Jessica has mentioned several times in this newsletter about the fact that even when reproductive rights *seem* secure, they aren't necessarily, esp when people still face barriers like poverty, anti-queer bias, racism, and more. Sometimes, when you are poor like I've been all my life, you get pot-luck when accessing medical care of any sort, and it ain't necessarily good.
Quote from above:
The suit pointed out, for example, that one section of the statute reads as follows:
“In recognition that Almighty God is the author of life, that all men and women are ‘endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among those are Life.’”
Seems like religious imposition to me! Judge Jason Sengheiser, however, said that there’s similar language in the state constitution and that the rest of the law doesn’t have religious language.
End quote.
There is no such language in the constitution. There is no such language in any US legal documentation except for the Declaration of Independence,
https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript
"... to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them ..."
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
In the whole document "the Creator" and "God" are mentioned only once.
It's a reference to the state constitution of Missouri, not the federal constitution. The preamble reads: "We, the people of Missouri, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, and grateful for His goodness, do establish this Constitution for the better government of the state."
Yes, I missed that, "state" constitution.
Although, the section of the statute does sound more like a reference to the Declaration of Independence.
Your quote above is the entire preamble.
Here is the Missouri state constitution,
https://www.sos.mo.gov/CMSImages/Publications/CurrentMissouriConstitution.pdf
Using Ctrl-f, I searched the word "god" and found only two hits in the whole document.
The Republican party has become SO RADICAL, on this issue and so many others, and yet the MSM and most voters don't seem to realize it. I wish I knew the solutions, because I don't think the path this country is on is sustainable.
I believe that at some primitive level these men feel threatened by a means of reproduction (IVF) that de-centers their conviction in the holy life-giving penis and their entitlement to sex, while elevating female autonomy. They may realize that enough sperm is frozen in labs to render them completely reproductively unnecessary for years to come. This is the allure of fundamentalist religion's support of men's internalized image of themselves as little gods. This idea results in alternating states of ego inflation and shame for men, when they inevitably fall short. The shame has to be projected outward for them to regain ego stability and the sense of their righteous authority. They dynamic is driven by both magical thinking and childish fear, as anything less could land them in hell. For women in the fundamentalist system, the only ego stabilizing option is to shame and punish other women while becoming psychologically male-identified. This adaptation fuels constant low-grade hatred for oneself and for other women.
Very good analysis of the psychology involved.
And yes a very small number of men can produce enough sperm to go around for the whole species, so most of us are indeed unnecessary. The same will never be said for women, until such time as growing 'test-tube' babies becomes economical. The obvious conclusion is that women are more important than men, and yet our world is structured as if the opposite were true. And that utterly illogical fact never fails to make my head want to explode.
Want a feel good? He is standing up. I hate what he & especially his wife went through. That being said, he’s being a leader. He’s not just taking care of his family, he’s trying to bring awareness that this can & does happen. We need more men like Ryan, but not more horror stories, just strong men who care, actually really care and who aren’t afraid. Calling out the hate and setting them straight. (That could be an ad slogan!)
https://x.com/theryanhamilton/status/1802718746554884193?s=46
Hell yes to that guy!! You keep talking, sir!!
Don't know if you saw this piece at Slate. Arizona republicans are trying to scrap the way the state Supreme Court works (six year terms after appointment with retention elections, which no judge has ever lost) to appointments during good behavior until retirement at 70. Two conservatives face retention elections in November, and pro-choice groups are eyeing them to try to flip the Court (with democratic governor Hobbs being able to fill the seats if they are not retained). Senate approved it by a single vote (it now goes to voters in November, where it only needs a simple majority). Among the Senators voting in favor was the wife of one of the justices up for retention.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/06/gop-plan-abortion-ban-arizona-judge-election.html
I heard Jake Tapper make a comment today that I hadn’t considered about denying access to IVF.
I don’t recall his exact words. Essentially, Tapper said outlawing IVF doesn’t just restrict women’s reproductive rights; outlawing IVF denies reproductive rights to MEN and women who want to have a family.
“Biological family” maybe not his words, but surely that’s what he meant.
It's so hard to believe that people might vote for Trump because prices have gone up some. It'll be worse under his policies! To quote (in a better way) Barry Goldwater: those who give up their rights in hopes of price cuts deserve and get neither.
It is really embarrassing how easily swayed too many of us are.
I'm dumbstruck by this irrational labelling of IVF. The people I know who've used IVF want to have a family and I guess I'm just naive in thinking we should be happy that science has enabled them to do just that. It seems we're becoming Ebeneezer Scrooge-like in our pinched, narrow-minded approach to everyone else's rights and opinions beyond our own.
“Experts at Bloomberg and MSNBC say last week’s SCOTUS decision was a “scolding” to the judges who let the flimsy case get so far; “
I wonder why they think that. After 303 Creative (2023) I don’t see why they would get upset about flimsy cases. Maybe because they keep getting caught flying flags and on undisclosed private jet flights? Or imo because it’s a big election year and they don’t want 2022 again.
In 303 Creative, you could at least make up a reason that there might be standing, the hypothetical nature of the 'harm' actually helped with that. The impact is bad, but isn't going to completely upend anything by itself. There's no universe where those anti-abortion ER doctors had any standing whatsoever. All their bullshit studies had been retracted so they couldn't use a fake science argument. They literally said they have nothing to do with the treatment of abortion patients, they don't prescribe it, and as Coach Kavenaugh said- 'we have strong conscience protections' that mean they aren't forced to have anything to do with abortion patients. Based on that though, I'm expecting the EMTALA decision to be horrendous.
It's not like you could ever make one of those bastards do a procedure they didn't want to do, anyway. They would just call in another doc to do it, That was how they always handled it in the the past. But I've been retired for over a decade.
That also fits with my veteran experience patient-side. Normally if a doctor doesn't want to do something they just don't and I have to find a new doctor, lol.
I just reread some of the mifepristone decision, Coach was explicit about it not being necessary for any individual doctor to do anything, because (and the Government agrees) requirements and regulations are attached to the institutions, not the individual doctors.
Your “Coach” comment is 🎯 The Conservative side of SCOTUS could all be called that when reading their decisions
He was more upset about losing his softball girls team that he coached, than Christine Blasey-Ford's (no doubt true) account of his rapey behavior. He also introduced them, before he did his wife, so that tells you where she ranks.
I listen to Strict Scrutiny every week and that's what they call him. "Coach Kavenaugh, father of daughters". The nicknames and derision help me manage my terror :D
Which is exactly why they took the case and held it for so long. As Jessica wrote, there are 3 more cases (at least) coming up the pipeline and now they have a better idea of how they will be treated at SCOTUS.
If SCOTUS thought it was flimsy, I wonder why they took the case? Could it be that it gave them an opportunity to instruct how to successfully bring the case back to them?
I thought that as well. "You don't have standing...but bring us someone who does."
Or use Congress and Comstock. Why are Dems not putting a bill forth to end Comstock???
They are trying to put on many fires, with the asshole republicans killing our rights everyday. They also know that with this repub majority congress they won't have the votes, yet. Never bring a bill up if you don't have the votes. If we all do our part, and get out the vote and give them both the senate and the lower house, they can do that.
I laughed out loud at the title of the newsletter today. Talk about being womb half-empty.
Also, fun fact! Do you know why it's a big sin in the Catholic Church to kill yourself? So feudal peasants wouldn't off themselves after going to church and hearing about how great Heaven is, thus depriving the upper class of their labor. With the rollback of child labor laws, a cynic might think the reason hasn't changed much...
Love the image you've created here!
Just flagging this in case folks hadn’t seen it. Gave me chills. Also, they should have drawn more connections to the abortion bans in the state, but it’s the NYTimes so I throw up my hands: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/15/health/ceseareans-outpatient-florida.html
They suck, they always fail to connect the dots as to how it came to this.
Thanks for this link. I hadn’t seen it. Is there no limit to the premeditated harm being done to women? We need to charge lawmakers with murder when someone dies in one of these hellholes.
That really bothered me. I think it is groundwork for when they require c-sections or labor induction instead of D&Cs or other abortion care for women with dead, dying, or nonviable fetuses.
Yup. The cruelty is the point.
🎯
Are they only for insured patients who are “in-network.” The example provided was a center essentially attached to a hospital with “staff sharing” and emergency care available. So… docs & nurses working at both hospital & birthing center & presumably making more $ with a concrete low risk C-section schedule at birthing center (covered by insurance) for essentially those who have presumably “good insurance.” Yet, it will supposedly be cheaper than a hospital setting and “more comfortable.” I wonder if this will fall under essentially “Concierge Plans” in larger, wealthier cities where there is still limited doctors. Some reporter should be asking which health insurance they take, out of curiosity.
Omg, I saw that yesterday and almost had a stroke. The sheer gall of regulating clinics out of business to "protect" women and now any amoral Private Equity goon in Florida can perform major abdominal surgery? The only person who I know had a scheduled C-section lost over half the blood in her body. Private Equity starving Grandma and Grandpa to death from staffing shortages in nursing homes is bad enough, now they want to do this? Fuck all the ghouls who think this is any kind of solution.
Oh well isn’t that just lovely. 🤨
Jessica, is there a way to find out who in the ID legislature used IVF to get pregnant? Or which family members of those in the legislature used IVF? I continually want to ask those who protest against birth control what their birth control they use. Are reporters asking those questions directly?
Excellent questions. I like how you think 🤔👍
Great idea!!
I have no sympathy for the gop women that lost their primaries, and if the one remaining loses the runoff I don't care. It's been obvious for years now that the gop hates women.
I’m actually surprised at it. Why are voters approving abortion protection amendments in state after state and yet STILL paradoxically voting out women like these, who voted AGAINST the ban, and voting FOR Republicans in their state? It’s just confusing. Maybe voters aren’t making the connection or just voting party line…
I think more emphasis needs to be put nationwide on state candidates and the damage they’re doing to women. Voters can pass all the amendments they want, but with Republican majorities locked up, nothing will really change and they won’t stop their lawless anti-choice agenda.
Because the 30% anti choice voting block goes a long way in voting them out in the primary. Dems not vote switching to save an R state legislator, they are voting for the D candidate they want. Plus, too many non-fanatical Rs don’t think their child or family member will ever be denied miscarriage care & many also think their savings account will be able to “fix it” if they do.
I just read today that Democrats are putting $50 million into state level races this year.
Yes, they are fielding a candidate in every county in Florida. The democratic party is fighting back here!
Does show the intolerance of any opinions outside those mandated.
?
It's all so dystopian--and on top of these indignities it seems that there is a 20% increase in women seeking tubal ligation in the wake of Dobbs. Will the GOP come after sterilization next? Don't be surprised if it does.
It's a given, they see women as brood-stock, and nothing must be allowed to interfere with that!
I've had a couple friends tell me that their (male) doctor wouldn't "let" them have pregnancy preventive procedures at all or without their husband's permission. This is within the last 30 years. Amazing, right?????
I worked with "Southern Male religious GYNs" like that, they wouldn't perform tubal ligations, and talked women out of it in a very condescending way.
Hmmm. So things haven't changed much on that front. From 1970 (when I was 17) til I went through menopause at 43 in the mid-1990s, I asked every doctor I encountered, in every specialty (relevant or not) to let me get my tubes tied. The excuses were as you describe: you're too young, you'll change your mind, only if you are at least 30 and have at least 3 kids, only if you have your husband's permission, yadda. So basically, no, with contempt either overt or strongly implied. I'd known since I was 10, changing my youngest brother's diapers and getting up at 2 a.m. to feed him, that I didn't want kids--no how, no way. But that made zero difference, because someday I was magically gonna find The Guy, change my mind, start popping out babies, and Fulfill My Destiny. According to those (mostly male) docs. Yeah, as if. Horrible that young women today, more than 50 years later, are still getting that same stupid song and dance.
I had female OBGYNS sing the same song to me in the 90s and 2000s. But they topped it with chances of insurance covering you still taking the pill because of bad periods was zero.
I had to hear that crap, too until I changed to have a woman GYN. Then it stopped. I know some lovely male GYNs that I worked with that weren't like that. Mostly from up north.
Mostly I ended up with male gyns simply because (this will sound so odd) when I started college in 1970, I had never met a female doctor. At all. I had vaguely heard that such rare creatures existed--but had never met one and never actually expected to. This was in the SF Bay Area. I grew up about 7 miles from UC Berkeley. Even after that, still in California, female gyns were thin on the ground up to the 2010s. The few who were around shared the prejudices of their male counterparts, and acted accordingly. (Except, of course, in free-standing clinics that offered birth control and abortions. I specifically went to a couple of those clinics and didn't get as easily dismissed.) Jessica has mentioned several times in this newsletter about the fact that even when reproductive rights *seem* secure, they aren't necessarily, esp when people still face barriers like poverty, anti-queer bias, racism, and more. Sometimes, when you are poor like I've been all my life, you get pot-luck when accessing medical care of any sort, and it ain't necessarily good.
The Handmaid's Tale writ large. It's appalling.