There's also the fact that 18th-early 19th century abortion law was influenced by whether, with the contemporary state of medical knowledge, abortion was more or less dangerous than childbirth--so women's health was actually taken into consideration.
I had to take a break from the news today, but then the first thing I opened was an article from Media Matters about how the Heritage Foundation 🤮 published new policy guidelines suggesting that the term “reproductive health” be eliminated from all federal rules and regulations. The audacity of these people is next level.
Forcing women to answer a bunch of questions as to why they're getting an abortion is an invasion of privacy- this is in direct conflict with the 14th Amendment.
Assuming Kansas Republicans manage to force the reporting requirement through - and there’s a not insubstantial chance it could happen - it would be nice to see “It’s none of your business” become the default answer. Send the legislature a message it apparently needs to hear.
I sincerely do not understand how people who want to breach health data privacy aren't laughed out of office. I work in healthcare and patient privacy is a constant. We don't even provide aggregate reporting below a certain level, it's such a basic concept when you work with health data. No, you can't access individual medical files. Men were mad when they had to show proof of vaccination during a pandemic to enter public spaces. In a logical world reproductive health data privacy infringement should cause more outrage in the same group.
Clearly this is a moral crusade. There is no correct answer when a woman is asked why she wants an abortion because the obvious fact that she wants one is by itself incriminating. If she needed an abortion by some objective standard, like as in a threat to her reproductive potential, it would have been a doctor (male) who explained it to her. She wouldn't have to ask for one.
And it's no accident that these same people are going after birth control. Elective abortions are birth control. Asking a woman why she wants an abortion is the same thing as asking her why she wants birth control. In the history of decriminalizing birth control, pioneered by Margaret Sanger, is the now obsolete argument that married couples at least should be able to use it. Similarly, we see arguments that a woman seeking a divorce should not be able to get an abortion. Heterosexual sexual intercourse here is the battle ground and who gets to participate in it and why. A woman asking for an abortion has been having heterosexual intercourse for the wrong reason in the eyes of those insisting on asking.
I just wanted to reassure all of you that I just heard on npr that 80% of Americans support a woman’s right to choose. We’re going to win big this November, they really fucked up overturning roe, and it feels so good to throw it in their faces. I was talking with 2 guys at work today (I am a pipefitter, I work in construction) that were talking about trump and I told them that I don’t want to hear any bitching in November. We’re pissed (women I mean) and we vote. They were both stunned; it never occurred to them that we’re pissed off, and are going to get rid of their controlling asshole legislators. I try to stay away from politics at work, those guys can be reall assholes. And the conspiracy theories they buy into are infuriating. Once we change tide, we need to be gentle with all the republican men. Just the ones we can convince, a lot of them are just a waste of time.
This goddamn man in Indiana, Todd Rokita, is a cruel and overzealous maniac. I thought we had privacy laws in America! Well, do we or not!!???? This man wants to know who had abortions. He wants to hunt down women and girls!! His viciousness is revealing what a truly horrendous cristo-fascist he is. How women are being treated is alarming!! Vote all the republican bastards OUT of office. Indiana, you do NOT have to put up with this shit if you vote!!
It's infuriating that doctors are being mandated to ask the reason a woman wants an abortion! Roe was based on the 14th Amendment. Writing for the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade, Justice Blackmun said that the court held a woman’s right to an abortion was implicit in the right to privacy.
Well, that's a moot point now that Roe has been eviscerated.
I saw a t-shirt that said:
Five reasons to get an abortion:
Because you want one
Because you want one
Because you want one
Because you want one
Because you want one
I doubt a doctor would accept that answer, however.
How things turn out in Indiana probably depends on who the next Governor is. At this point, it is likely to be Mike Braun. That would be a very bad outcome.
A few months back, I did some research about privacy laws, and the reporting laws almost all said explicitly that patient names are not reportable. I mean, not that this crew obeys the laws they passed anyway.
The Brennan Center's State Court report from Mar. 26 is entitled "State ERAs Take Center Stage," covering Silver State Hope Fund v. Nevada Dept of HHS, an unpublished summary order holding that the state's denial of Medicaid coverage for abortions violates the state ERA (which was adopted in 2022). (Remember, the Hyde Amendment does not prevent state Medicaid agencies from using STATE rather than federal funds to provide abortion care.) The Brennan Center says that 17 other states also have Medicaid abortion funding. The article also says that in January, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that Pennsylvania's policy of denying Medicaid abortion funding was sex discrimination that the court presumed violated the state ERA; the case was sent back to the trial court, essentially telling them to do it over and do it right this time. The article says that there have not been many cases decided to interpret the 22 state ERAs, but ERAs are on the ballot in several states this year.
The article also says that Dobbs didn't really consider the argument that abortion limitations are sex discrimination that violates the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution--but that sexual-equality-based arguments might succeed under state constitutions that have ERAs.
This is also reminding me of how RBG thought the right to abortion should have been established. Something along this legal footing instead of right to privacy.
Constitutional litigation is sort of like a game of Twister--you have to find a way to put one of your body parts on a provision of the Constitution. Actually I think that finding a right to privacy in the Constitution is pretty much a Hail Mary pass. I believe that people ought to have a right to privacy, and we shouldn't treat the Founders as infallible or the Constitution as the sole rationale for 21st century law, but we have to pretend that we're making Constitutional arguments rather than justice-based arguments. I think the Founders would have been *horrified* by the idea of women claiming a right to bodily autonomy, but that means they'd be wrong and we're right.
Women handled abortion in the founding father's time, though, because so much territory was rural, midwives did all the reproductive issues. It vwas only later when the AMA was formed that men got involved in the process.
There's also the fact that 18th-early 19th century abortion law was influenced by whether, with the contemporary state of medical knowledge, abortion was more or less dangerous than childbirth--so women's health was actually taken into consideration.
I had to take a break from the news today, but then the first thing I opened was an article from Media Matters about how the Heritage Foundation 🤮 published new policy guidelines suggesting that the term “reproductive health” be eliminated from all federal rules and regulations. The audacity of these people is next level.
Yes disinformation is their stock in trade.
Forcing women to answer a bunch of questions as to why they're getting an abortion is an invasion of privacy- this is in direct conflict with the 14th Amendment.
Assuming Kansas Republicans manage to force the reporting requirement through - and there’s a not insubstantial chance it could happen - it would be nice to see “It’s none of your business” become the default answer. Send the legislature a message it apparently needs to hear.
I sincerely do not understand how people who want to breach health data privacy aren't laughed out of office. I work in healthcare and patient privacy is a constant. We don't even provide aggregate reporting below a certain level, it's such a basic concept when you work with health data. No, you can't access individual medical files. Men were mad when they had to show proof of vaccination during a pandemic to enter public spaces. In a logical world reproductive health data privacy infringement should cause more outrage in the same group.
Did anyone else hear that sack of lard Steve Bannon say that if Trump wins Democrats will be imprisoned. Like all and any?? These people are insane.
Yes, they are. And idiots vote for them, never thinking the "face-eating leopard party" would eat their face!
If doctors are mandated to ask women why they are requesting an abortion, can’t we just give women a list of potential good answers, like:
1) Based on my right to privacy, my reason is private;
2) I decline to state for medical privacy reasons;
3) My answer is that is none of your business;
4) I decline to answer that sex discriminatory question, please ask the father instead;
5) My decision is closely related to my political party affiliation and I am not comfortable disclosing how I vote;
etc. - a cheat sheet of good examples can be available on the web!
Yes.
Clearly this is a moral crusade. There is no correct answer when a woman is asked why she wants an abortion because the obvious fact that she wants one is by itself incriminating. If she needed an abortion by some objective standard, like as in a threat to her reproductive potential, it would have been a doctor (male) who explained it to her. She wouldn't have to ask for one.
And it's no accident that these same people are going after birth control. Elective abortions are birth control. Asking a woman why she wants an abortion is the same thing as asking her why she wants birth control. In the history of decriminalizing birth control, pioneered by Margaret Sanger, is the now obsolete argument that married couples at least should be able to use it. Similarly, we see arguments that a woman seeking a divorce should not be able to get an abortion. Heterosexual sexual intercourse here is the battle ground and who gets to participate in it and why. A woman asking for an abortion has been having heterosexual intercourse for the wrong reason in the eyes of those insisting on asking.
Crusade is a good word for it.
I just wanted to reassure all of you that I just heard on npr that 80% of Americans support a woman’s right to choose. We’re going to win big this November, they really fucked up overturning roe, and it feels so good to throw it in their faces. I was talking with 2 guys at work today (I am a pipefitter, I work in construction) that were talking about trump and I told them that I don’t want to hear any bitching in November. We’re pissed (women I mean) and we vote. They were both stunned; it never occurred to them that we’re pissed off, and are going to get rid of their controlling asshole legislators. I try to stay away from politics at work, those guys can be reall assholes. And the conspiracy theories they buy into are infuriating. Once we change tide, we need to be gentle with all the republican men. Just the ones we can convince, a lot of them are just a waste of time.
I can totally relate. I work around Trumpers and it tries my sanity. It is very difficult for me.
Oh damn, hugs to you, if you want them, and my sympathies.
This goddamn man in Indiana, Todd Rokita, is a cruel and overzealous maniac. I thought we had privacy laws in America! Well, do we or not!!???? This man wants to know who had abortions. He wants to hunt down women and girls!! His viciousness is revealing what a truly horrendous cristo-fascist he is. How women are being treated is alarming!! Vote all the republican bastards OUT of office. Indiana, you do NOT have to put up with this shit if you vote!!
It's infuriating that doctors are being mandated to ask the reason a woman wants an abortion! Roe was based on the 14th Amendment. Writing for the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade, Justice Blackmun said that the court held a woman’s right to an abortion was implicit in the right to privacy.
Well, that's a moot point now that Roe has been eviscerated.
I saw a t-shirt that said:
Five reasons to get an abortion:
Because you want one
Because you want one
Because you want one
Because you want one
Because you want one
I doubt a doctor would accept that answer, however.
How things turn out in Indiana probably depends on who the next Governor is. At this point, it is likely to be Mike Braun. That would be a very bad outcome.
This will make McCarthyism look tame. Just outrageous. They haven't learned from history -- from so much history.
Keep outing this stuff !
I printed this one and put it out on the counter for everyone today.
Thanks for keeping us up to date!
I am writing about Project 2025 5 days a week here on Substack. Here are a couple of my newsletters on this topic.
https://project2025istheocracy.substack.com/p/project-2025-how-christian-nationalist
https://project2025istheocracy.substack.com/p/reader-question-what-does-project
A link to Project 2025 is great, but it is not designed to be read and digested. I hope these links add nuance and depth to this discussion.
Thank you. This is really great work Andra.
A few months back, I did some research about privacy laws, and the reporting laws almost all said explicitly that patient names are not reportable. I mean, not that this crew obeys the laws they passed anyway.
The Brennan Center's State Court report from Mar. 26 is entitled "State ERAs Take Center Stage," covering Silver State Hope Fund v. Nevada Dept of HHS, an unpublished summary order holding that the state's denial of Medicaid coverage for abortions violates the state ERA (which was adopted in 2022). (Remember, the Hyde Amendment does not prevent state Medicaid agencies from using STATE rather than federal funds to provide abortion care.) The Brennan Center says that 17 other states also have Medicaid abortion funding. The article also says that in January, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that Pennsylvania's policy of denying Medicaid abortion funding was sex discrimination that the court presumed violated the state ERA; the case was sent back to the trial court, essentially telling them to do it over and do it right this time. The article says that there have not been many cases decided to interpret the 22 state ERAs, but ERAs are on the ballot in several states this year.
The article also says that Dobbs didn't really consider the argument that abortion limitations are sex discrimination that violates the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution--but that sexual-equality-based arguments might succeed under state constitutions that have ERAs.
This is also reminding me of how RBG thought the right to abortion should have been established. Something along this legal footing instead of right to privacy.
Constitutional litigation is sort of like a game of Twister--you have to find a way to put one of your body parts on a provision of the Constitution. Actually I think that finding a right to privacy in the Constitution is pretty much a Hail Mary pass. I believe that people ought to have a right to privacy, and we shouldn't treat the Founders as infallible or the Constitution as the sole rationale for 21st century law, but we have to pretend that we're making Constitutional arguments rather than justice-based arguments. I think the Founders would have been *horrified* by the idea of women claiming a right to bodily autonomy, but that means they'd be wrong and we're right.
Women handled abortion in the founding father's time, though, because so much territory was rural, midwives did all the reproductive issues. It vwas only later when the AMA was formed that men got involved in the process.