It all comes back to: the cruelty is the point. We cannot say that or stress it too much.
The people who write, craft, introduce these bills REALLY.DONOT.LIKE.WOMEN.
We are an inferior part of humanity and for these men and women we are just uteruses to be filled with thrur seed, which we incubate and then give birth to. If we encounter serious or life-threatening complications, or have a pregnancy in which the fetus will not survive, too bad.
These people need to be named and shamed.
BTW- how many "spa weekends " do we think Trump, Gaetz and Hegseth have covertly funded so that mistresses or one night stands didn't produce embarrassing consequences ?
I was wondering why there wasn't a "forced-birth" backlash to RFK Jr. Now I know. Wow.
Thank you Jessica for all of this reporting and for keeping us informed. I'd be lost without it.
Going to continue walking around in a fog of disbelief now, waiting for the next meeting of the democrats in my town who are starting to gather and figure out how we can safeguard ourselves, our kids, and our sanity together, locally.
Before Roe, in the sixties and seventies, the feminist underground — yes, there was such a thing — promoted a home procedure called "menstrual extraction" or "menstrual regulation," which safely removes — via suction — a woman's entire menstrual flow in about half an hour, with no doctors or men required. This is practiced all over the Far East (Thailand, S Korea especially), and even governments that forbid abortion allow, encourage, and/or provide this option. Officially, they view this as a woman "regulating her period," with no questions asked about what else — like say, a fetus — might be extracted in the process. It's easy, it's safe, and it's cheaper than any abortion. Pre-Roe, women's groups would train each other to do it, and it was just getting started as a viable way to end a pregnancy when Roe came along and rendered it moot. I wrote about this two years ago — http://www.leftjabs.com/2022/07/menstrual-extraction-and-diy-abortion.html — but few were willing to listen at the time. I'm wondering, given the events cited here, if the idea is worth another look. Being a man, I'm reluctant to push this too hard without a few influential women on board. But I do urge Jessica and her readers to investigate for themselves.
This almost made it into "You Love to See": the University of Maryland School of Medicine and U.Md.-Baltimore have a training program for nurse practitioners covering medication and procedural abortions and long-lasting contraception. Nurse practitioner Samantha Marsee who had little knowledge about abortion care completed the program and now is able to assist rural patients who want to terminate a pregnancy.
A 2022 Maryland law, the Abortion Care Access Act, expanded the scope of practice that nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and certified nurse-midwives can provide--including abortion. These professionals received priority in the universities' training program. Up to 120 practitioners are expected to receive the training in the next two years. (The Maryland ballot initiative to include reproductive rights protection in the state constitution passed by a large margin). See Sarah Varney, "Maryland is Training More Health Workers to Offer Abortion Care," kffhealthnews.org (Nov. 13, 2024), https://kffhealthnews.org/news/article/maryland-abortion-care-training-rural-np-pa-cnw/.
About the cabinet picks, Hannah Arendt addressed this in “The Origins of Totalitarianism”: “Totalitarianism in power invariably replaces all first-rate talents, regardless of their sympathies, with those crackpots and fools whose lack of intelligence and creativity is still the best guarantee of their loyalty.” He is deliberately choosing clowns with no expertise, especially those with histories of sexual predation and abusive behavior toward women, as a test and Senate Republicans will fail that test. They may express “concern” for one reason or another, but they’ll fall in line and find reasons to give him what he wants.
According to Project 2025, which I read and discussed with a book club of Democrats Abroad. In it we see that the Department of Health and Human Services is slated to be shut down, and replaced by a Department of Life. So, will Kennedy be over it once there are no more Health and Human Services. By the way, they also plan to shut the Department of Education down, and move Special Education to Health and Human Services, which will be shut down, and Regular Education will be moved to the Department of Labor, which is promoting the idea that they should revive child labor and make workers in general- contract workers responsible for their own benefits like Uber drivers. So, there are going to be a host of problems generated if they enact any parts of Project 2025 document, and where Kennedy will end up is unclear.
As I said to my 23-year old nephew who did not vote for Trump, but did not have a problem with him, when he told me Trump said, he did not want a national abortion ban, "Trump is a liar!"
Anyone who thought Trump would nominate people who know what they're doing is a fool. Don the Con has three criteria for filling cabinet positions. #1 Absolute loyalty to Trump (the Constitution be damned), #2 No qualifying credentials (can't have anyone around that might know more or be more competent than the One), #3 all nominees must be incompetent (see#2).
Working for the USPS for years they cant stop drug shipments. The postal inspectors dont have the man power. I think its 1/10 shipments are estimated to be stopped. Unfortunately it means getting from reliable sources will be gone and then you run the risk of getting faux drugs. Truly insane to rely on postal service to police drug shipments.
Re: forced birthers accusing women with inviable pregnancies of "killing [their] disabled children." I'm trying to be coherent and moderate in my language here, but just reading that made me scream. It's predicated on the assumption that women are too stupid and bubble-headed to understand the difference between a child or adult with a disability and a fetus with a lethal abnormality. That set me off because I have lived for 70 of my 72 years with diagnosed disabilities, things that I understood were health problems by the time I turned two. Back in the early 1950s, diagnosis of some of these conditions was delayed, as was true for me, because little was understood. Sometimes pregnancies resulted in unexpected stillbirths or miscarriages, and all doctors could say was, "we don't know." But even back then, women who experienced stillbirths or miscarriages did not confuse those with living children or adults with disabilities. Even women like my mother (10 pregnancies, of which 1 stillbirth, 2 miscarriages), who was very anti-abortion, did not confuse those losses with her seven living children (3 physical disabilities, 2 mental disabilities, and various severe health problems.) Did she grieve those pregnancy losses? Yes, to her dying day. But she didn't confuse the needs of her living disabled children with those pregnancy losses. And I do not confuse my 70 years of living with disabilities with a pregnancy loss due to a lethal fetal abnormality. The whole idea that this confusion could even exist is frankly an insult to women's intelligence. (Then again, they they probably believe we think with our wandering uteruses, so...)
He's an embarrassment to a family that for years has carefully crafted their image, going back to Joseph F. and Rose Kennedy. That said, it seems that the current generation of Kennedys wants nothing to do with RFK, Jr.
The guy saw his uncle assassinated when he was 4, his dad at 9, in addition to a host of other family tragedies. He turned to drug use in high school and has obviously never over come so much trauma. But there is zero reason to inflict him on the rest of us.
Dude wants to bring back polio, measles, whooping cough, and more. Perhaps next he and his anti-vax buddies will campaign on Save The Smallpox Virus! Or Restore The Black Plague! Or Conserve Justinian's Flea! Some people have way too much money and time on their hands. Maybe he could be recommended for a job scrubbing toilets in a rooms-by-the-hour motel. At least he won't harm anybody there.
I am trying to understand. Why must it be "all or nothing" from both sides. Why are the laws, Propositions, Amendments, and even Supreme Court Decisions so stupidly vague and biased that most of us can't understand them -- much less agree with them? What happened to "common sense?" Why must it be so hard? There is so much at stake!
It is a matter of definition: Some people (States) believe that abortion is "murder: the taking of an innocent life" -- a crime. Others do not. And "contributing to the delinquency of a minor" is a crime -- aiding and abetting.
If all you want is the right to an abortion in the "gut-wrenching" exceptions you have mentioned where it is necessary, it should not be a crime for anyone to save the mother's life. However if you want "abortion -- of any kind -- on demand," then we have a problem.
Seems like several times a week, someone on the news is found guilty of the crime of "sodomy." Over the years, the definition of "sodomy" has changed and some actions are no longer considered to be a crime or immoral by our culture. But some still are. We need to agree on abortion.
I agree with you: No one should have to die. Let's fix this!
If everyone were willing and able to always make right choices, we wouldn't need laws. Didn't every one of us have mothers who "put their lives and health at risk?" I say, THANK YOU.
You didn't finish your sentence: "living, breathing women are being forced to put their lives and health at risk" for?
And who says they all were the better for it? You say thank you. I say well, if my mom had decided she didn't want to be pregnant and had somehow managed to get an abortion -- not the easiest thing in 1953 --I wouldn't be here to even know! There are no doubt plenty of women who in the pre-Roe days bore unwanted children because they didn't have any alternative. And whose lives were at risk because of it.
Are we only here for ourselves? I recently observed a situation and could only make intelligent guesses regarding the circumstances: I saw a mother who was taking care of her (I am guessing) 20-year-old totally disabled child -- a full-time job. I didn't try to ask or be nosey, but it was obvious that she was fully devoted to her child and was content to be so. I could only pray that they were receiving adequate assistance and support.
Have some women gone so far to the other extreme that they believe that taking care of a family provides NO satisfaction, accomplishment, or fulfillment?
What is "abortion on demand"? Isn't is simply the right to control ones own body? A man is not forced to donate his body to keep someone else alive. Why should women be forced to so?
I suppose that it is abortion "for any reason" and without "justification." Even "homicide" can be "justifiable." Did you just admit that the fetus is alive? No one I know of wants the mother to die, or to "suffer" or to be "forced against her will (except in China)."
The "Why?" is exactly the question we need to answer and agree upon. As I hope you know, many people are trying to "save the life of the fetus." And this apparently conflicts with the rights of the woman -- especially in the terrible and unspeakably evil circumstances of rape, incest, pregnancy of minors (I don't want to leave anything out). It is not my place to judge: You don't even have to defend yourself. I will not force you to do anything. I only ask that you consider ALL the consequences of your actions and make the right "choice." I understand that this is not "easy," or straight-forward.
No. Especially when the mother dies of an ectopic pregnancy, an incomplete miscarriage or other horrible issue, and leaves behind the orphans already here. And can you explain the zeal for criminalizing women who simply miscarry, a thing that happens to almost all women at least once...and usually before she even knows she is pregnant. Miscarriage, which folk more on your side want to send women to prison for, is nature's way of eliminating those embryos that are not fit for life. I know this because my first pregnancy ended in miscarriage. What came out of me, and I saw it, was a 2 inch long thing that was covered in fins, was the dead color of lead and appeared to have only a single eye. The doctors were frantic to 'save my baby', even after they saw it. I thought this was nuts. I never felt the need to mourn, but that is my spiritual view, because there was no way this could have lived. Yet, today, I could be prosecuted. That is one of the consequences that women now have to live with. And it is religious attachments to the misogynistic writings of guys 2,000 - 4,000 years ago, compiled into a religious doctrine that defines women as having been born from men (an utterly nonsensical notion) and being subject to them. Interesting point - in 400 ce, the council of Nice cheerfully removed from what we think of as the Bible an amount of writing that was about as much as they left. The Apocrypha, as these books are now called, makes much mention of the fact that Jesus found women to be the BEST students...and nowhere, in the Bible or the apocrypha, is abortion banned. Also, reincarnation was an article of faith among early Christians.
I cannot explain criminalizing women at all! My mother had twin older brothers, who were born too small to breath. They died minutes later.
I realize that you have no reason to believe that the book of Genesis should be taken literally, but I believe that we have the written Testimony of the only one who was there ( Adam was asleep at the time), that God MADE (through cellular regeneration?) Eve OUT OF one of Adam's ribs. Sounds like a "fairy tale," but what if it is actually true? I have never found one word in the Bible to be untrue. I realize that a lot of people don't believe it, but many do.
If anyone believed in reincarnation, it was before they heard the Scripture, "It is appointed unto men 'once to die' and then comes Judgment."
Tim, it seems obvious that neither of us is going to convince the other. I could talk until I'm blue in the face, but we are each coming from such different points of view - especially on spirituality - that I am not certain that we would ever agree on this issue. I respect your faith, but mine is very different. My huge concern is for the women of this country if people of the type of Christianity get their way. They are trying to climb to heaven AND gain absolute power here on the bodies of women. All with the blessings of their God, forced down the throats of all. As Nick Fuentes, friend of Trump, crowed " your bodies, our choice. Forever."
Nick Fuentes is a demon! And just because the KKK voted for Trump -- did you expect them to vote for Kamala -- THAT DOESN"T MAKE THEM MY FRIEND! I assure you, that THE God and His Son Jesus -- of the Bible -- does not condone or support the unrighteous. And your and my definition of "right and wrong" is not all that far apart. I realized years ago that each of us comes form different points of view and that God holds each one of us responsible for their own experience. I cannot expect you to understand what you have not experienced. Therefore I am trying to communicate with you, using my own vocabulary, to discover what WE DO have in common, and possibly introduce you to new ideas and vice versa. Then we can grow TOGETHER, and possibly become friends. I am meeting new friends in many unexpected places and growing in the process, And enjoying it.
Yes, two women have died because NOT DOING ANYTHING was preferable to trying to save the woman's life, because the DYING fetus still had a heartbeat.
"Go home and have it in the toilet", they're told.
If you pro-lifers were SO concerned about "life" you'd do something for the people already here. But you don't. You don't want WIC, you don't want to expand Medicaid so that low income women can get prenatal care, you don't even want free lunches for low income kids in school. That's not pro-life.
Abortion bans aren't about saving lives (obviously, it is not), they're about controlling women. The sooner you alleged allies figure that out, the better off women will be.
Doctors should save the mother's life -- the laws be damned.
I just discovered that two of my grandchildren get free lunches, and their mother is a School Teacher. I am going to offer to pay for those lunches, so that it doesn't get tacked onto the National Debt!
Please see my above response. I am only trying to reach out and communicate. I am sorry if you consider that to be "trolling." But I learn very little from those who already agree with me. I am trying to earn your trust.
Why do 'we' have a problem with abortion on demand? Most women never have and may never contemplate abortion. But if you are a teenager or a college student with dreams and plans of your own and find yourself pregnant - FOR ANY REASON - why is it a problem to terminate an unwanted pregnancy because you are not ready or just don't want it or for any reason at all? Why is it anybody else's freaking business? Are we cattle or property? And why should men, who cannot get pregnant, have any say at all?
I almost said, "'I' have a problem," but it obviously affects you. And it affects the fetus. And, that brings us back to the definition of fetus and pregnancy and abortion, for that matter. Is the fetus -- male or female -- property? Every woman that chooses to have a child decides that the risk and investment of her time and resources -- her very life -- is worth it. Why do so many innocent babies have to die? Because they are not worth it?
Here's the problem: There have been over one billion abortions worldwide. Are you willing to say that every one of those is justifiable? Does the father of the fetus have any rights or responsibilities?
Tim, I appreciate that you want to work with us all, male and female, in order to fix what we broke. It will be difficult, however, to work with any women who do not subscribe to your beliefs about us, what god has designed for us, etc. But not impossible, if you are willing to acknowledge that we are not incubators whose primary function in life is have babies...which is what the religious, and merely autocratic, men want to enshrine as our only real reason for existence. I would imagine that most men would be highly offended if they were seen to be only walking sperm producers and money machines. JD Vance wants a policy that denies citizenship and the vote to any woman who does not bear x number of children or who either chooses to or cannot have children. Can you explain to me the how and why of that, and why men would not have to earn theirs? Would you support that if it meant ending abortion and 'saving babies?'
I do not know JD Vance very well, but I certainly disagree with what you have described. Americans are equal, regardless of their productive capacities -- including "procreation." You can't earn, purchase, or "deserve" Citizenship.
It is never correct to do wrong, in order to achieve a "right purpose."
Oh, one more thing, perhaps the most important. We see each other through the filters of our beliefs about the nature of the other. It is way past time that we examine these and learn to see ourselves and each as we truly are. Might be pleasantly surprised.
I have a question, as long as reproduction is a topic of conversation. Since guys are so concerned about falling birthrates and women's bodies, why are we not talking about the severe decline in men's fertility, globally, due to the nasty estrogen mimicking chemicals that mostly male owned and controlled chemical companies release into our environments, affecting every life form negatively? One might be tempted to think that considering things like this, which make a few men very wealthy, is just not economically feasible. Easier, and better for their bottom line, to attack women and force us to bear babies we don't want. Also, for your consideration, check out the increase in pregnancies that involve babies with birth defects, ranging from mild to catastrophic. No, let's not do that. Too uncomfortable to face the fact that male owned and driven businesses - like oil, gas, nasty chemicals, agribusiness - might have the most devastating effects on all of life, including reproduction. Nope. Far better and easier to force women, even if it kills us, to carry and give birth to the results of greed and the vanity that comes when religion teaches men that they are the lords of creation.
I do not intend to "make light of" any of the very serious and urgent problems you have identified. Do these male leaders not have ANY women to help direct them?
PLEASE take over the world and fix these problems. Or at least, withhold sex from all men until they fix them! SAVE THE WORLD!
Yes, Tim, there are women who do awful things, politically and personally. And the whole idea of one gender taking over everything is so not the point, although it has to acknowledged that the preponderance of folk who run religions, make laws and create toxic environments are men. I think that that is because women are more often kept out of the decision and law making processes. In my, admittedly never terribly humble, opinion, the solutions have to include men becoming comfortable with women in all areas, including leadership, and both sexes learning to actually work together. Without attempts to own and control anyone, in the name of God or Goddess or Science or Art or anything. The idiotic game of king on the mountain that has been played for soooo long has to stop. There is no king, there is no mountain to own or conquer. There is only Now. There are only people living with a world we share with so many other lives.
Communicating and working with you is exactly what I am trying to do. And SOMEBODY has got to fix the problems and clean up the messes our leaders -- male and female, in no particular order -- have made, before it is too late. And because I just can't believe that they are really THAT stupid, I am concerned that "they" have been doing it ON PURPOSE. And if I ever find out that their purpose is "Treason," LOOK OUT! I will be happy to give the rest of my life to restore and preserve the Freedoms I have enjoyed for my family and loved ones.
You want women to justfy our choices? Frankly, since men take zero risks, except for parting with a teaspoonful of semen, and women's lives and futures are all on the line, kindly explain to me why men should have ANYTHING TO SAY about what a woman chooses to do with her own body and life. How about this? Since men are so eager to claim ownership of women's bodies and reproduction, women should have ownership of men's genitalia and reproductive lives. Maybe we should force men, the ones we think are worthy, to father endless numbers of kids. And support every one of them. After all, according to Monty Python AND god, "Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great. If any sperm gets wasted, God gets quite irate." Yes, men should definitely not be allowed to masturbate. Furthermore, NO WOMAN HAS TO JUSTFY HER CHOICES TO MEN OR ANYONE! Anymore than any man has to justify HIS choice to be a parent or not. So, guys, stop clutching your pearls over the babies. When we terminate, they are not much more than a collection of cellular possibilities, with the profoundly sad exceptions when a truly wanted pregnancy has to end because the fetus is not viable or the mother's life is in danger. Both scenarios also being attacked. So, you try to convince me that many men give a rat's ass or a tinkers damn for the lives and rights of women, when they are doing everything they can to enslave and kill us. For thousands of years, men have assumed it was their god-given right to own and control women. No more, dudes. If I have my druthers, and I am a 74 year old happily married mother of 4 and grandmother of 4, we women will walk away and do zero for men...until you guys finally grow up and recognize our humanity and our complete right to self-determination...in all things.
I suppose you are correct that if men make no commitment, then they are taking no risk. Yes, you should hold men responsible. The fathers of three of my grandchildren are not to be found: I am having to fill in for them (with NO COMPLAINTS!).
You are very close to confirming what the Bible says in 1Cor. 7:4: "The wife's body belongs to the husband and likewise the husband's body belongs to the wife." Indeed, they become "one flesh" and hopefully, "one spirit." The result: one "family."
So what makes a man "worthy" to father your children?
Let me make sure I understand what you are saying: The "essence" -- what the fetus actually is -- is determined by the mother's choice: If the fetus is unwanted, it is a "collection of cellular possibilities." But if the "product of conception" is wanted, then and only then is the fetus a living human being. As the umpire said, "It ain't nothing, until I call it!" It's terrible when the game ends on a wrong call.
If men have mistreated and used you as slaves, I am sorry. A "real man" gives his life for his wife and children, no questions asked.
Yes, you have the right to "self-determination," but you don't have the power to control or define the consequences of your choices. In the case of abortion -- the death of your child.
Tim, you are obviously an intelligent man with deeply held convictions. I am sorry that your arguments seem to be from a solely religious point of view. Perhaps you can help me to understand why a religious belief should outweigh the majority who do not share that belief or that religion, to the point of basically defining women as property and cattle. For that is what we are if men who believe as you do, the House speaker comes to mind, have their way. Women will not have religion or the laws that come out of it determine, any longer, the courses of our lives. We are not owned, by God or man.
First of all, I was not raised that way, nor taught in Church, that men could treat woman as "property." Perhaps, I have been in a "bubble." Because "religion" has been given such a bad name, I am realizing that many people don't even believe that there is such a thing as "True Religion" any more. Many have never seen it "IN ACTION!" I am trying to regain your trust, by "re-presenting" the genuine Jesus. And He redeemed -- BOUGHT US BACK -- if we will only believe Him.
Abraham Lincoln once said, "It is very doubtful if the majority is ever correct." And that is why historically, Democracy doesn't last. However, I believe that our Declaration of Independence gives you the right to rebel against "tyranny." Just don't get too independent.
in the United States, you cannot be forced to keep someone else alive, even if they are in immediate danger of death. This is because bodily autonomy is a fundamental human right, and people have the right to make decisions about their own bodies.
Here are some examples of bodily autonomy:
You cannot be forced to donate your organs to someone in need of a transplant.
You cannot be forced to agree to be surgically attached to someone else for a prolonged period of time.
You have the right to make decisions about whether and when to have children.
The Supreme Court has interpreted the 14th Amendment's Liberty Clause to protect individual decisions about bodily autonomy. International human rights agreements also protect bodily autonomy.
Please tell me if ANY statement in the following is untrue:
The Inconvenient Truth (A Parable) There once was a woman who lived in a house. The woman occupied the house, but did not own the house. The Landlord owned the house. The woman had a visitor and the Landlord sent a baby to live in the house. The woman did not want the baby to live in the house. The woman asked the doctor to remove the baby from the house. The Landlord said, "You should not remove my baby, because it cannot live outside of the house yet." The woman said, "It is my house, and my baby, and I cannot live with this baby: Therefore, I will pay the doctor to remove the baby from my house." And the Landlord said, "Please do not kill my baby!" And the woman said, "I will do what I want!" The Landlord said, "If you do not repent and acknowledge the Truth, you will surely die." So the Landlord took the baby to live in His House and the woman died. The doctor died also. The End. P.S. The Landlord died too, so that the baby, the woman, and the doctor might live.
That is bull, fr9m beginning to end. The assumption that the landlord - read god and men - own the house - read the body and womb - of the woman. Oh, where do I begin? Firstly, you assume that YOUR version of g9d is THE god. What about the women whose version of god is a goddess? One who supports women's choices and considers abortion well within a woman's right? Religion has no place as a coercive force in this. Secondly, there is no argument. A man has no right to demand that a woman put her life and future on the line so that 'his' seed can live.
Please don't read your interpretation into the story: The ONLY Landlord is God (The Lord Jesus) and since he created our bodies, they belong to him and we are stewards. At conception, God sends the spirit of the fetus into its own body -- separate from its mothers, with its own blood-type. The only man is the visitor, who apparently "splits." Unless the doctor happens to be a man. Would a woman goddess send a baby to live in the womb, only to have it aborted? That would be rather cruel. And my God took the baby to live forever with Him. And He invites and has made the Way for the woman and the doctor to also make that important choice. Is there anything wrong with a God like that?
I agree with everything you just said. I cannot force you to keep the fetus alive. But do you have the right to kill the fetus? Which is what abortion does.
Actually, I have another, simple question. Considering that the religious, and other, right wing has consistently refused to support women and the children AFTER the kids are born, even when the mother is poor or the child has serious disabilities, leaving them twisting in the wind, how is it that forced birth is pushed? Trumps folk would remove every protection, from the aforementioned to education and housing and health-care. How can anyone justify forcing women to give birth and then making damned sure that she is so impoverished and exhausted that those kids get to live in the hell that patriarchy hath wrought? I think that it is you guys who have to justify to women why we should pay the slightest attention to what you say and want.
Apparently the Church -- including myself -- has failed to make the crux of your argument null and void. It is not supposed to be that way. When Christianity began 2000 years ago, all over the Roman world, unwanted babies were abandoned to the elements and left to die. Christians rescued these children and raised them for their own. WE should be doing this even now. There are a few assisting mothers and children, but apparently not enough. If the Church was doing its job, we wouldn't need the government to butt in!
Are you really hearing people being prosecuted for sodomy? I have never heard such a thing these days and always assumed sodomy laws were off the books.
This is important information Jessica. I knew it would be a matter of time before they made mifepristone a controlled substance. Also Texas passed a bill regarding porno sites. People used VPN’s to get around this. Gosh my heart goes out to all who want to start a family. I don’t have kids and if I was 22 again I’d be 4B for sure. Self preservation.
I have a great idea. Since the menz are so concerned that women might do something with their own bodies that with which said menz disagree, let's just cut to the chase. Admit, dudes, that what you are really drooling to do is 1) make being female a quasi-crime and, to make certain that every sperm is safe, just make a law requiring every woman, as soon as the state knows that she is pregnant, to be arrested and placed in a state-run "maternity home." 2) And, to prevent women from keeping their pregnancies secret, make a law that every girl, right after her first period, must have a tracking device placed in her womb or such that will signal the local police as soon as the pregnancy hormones kick in, Simple, yes? After all, the ways in which the menz are treating us and talking about us, it is clear that they do not consider us human. Or adults. Or as having any value outside of whore and incubators. BTW, the above was all suggested, about 40 years ago, in a sci-fi magazine called Omni.
It’s pretty rich that someone in Texas wants to outlaw pro choice websites. Texas has (had?) a law, which ended up at SCOTUS, forbidding web hosts from filtering out (implicitly right wing) content.
Just want to say for those who don't know about how the Texas legislature works: this is terrible, but because of the way our legislature is structured (one six-month session every two years, thanks Reconstruction constitution!) a lot of bills will die in committee and or in the rush to pass important/priority bills at the end of the session. The governor's priority this year is vouchers for kids in private schools and that's likely to take up a lot of time during the session beyond what's needed for basics like budgeting.
If the governor calls a special session about abortion issues this fall, I would be really worried. This is bad, but not super bad yet.
I believe you are totally correct. Our disgusting Governor is absolutely adamant about getting school vouchers passed and has expended enormous amounts of political capital on eliminating a large number of rural Republicans that opposed vouchers for what they would do to local school. Now he's got the votes. I do hope that issue gets bogged down somehow and leaves no time to attack abortion. -from an Austinite
Hey Texas, the First Amendment called and said go to hell.
It all comes back to: the cruelty is the point. We cannot say that or stress it too much.
The people who write, craft, introduce these bills REALLY.DO NOT.LIKE.WOMEN.
We are an inferior part of humanity and for these men and women we are just uteruses to be filled with thrur seed, which we incubate and then give birth to. If we encounter serious or life-threatening complications, or have a pregnancy in which the fetus will not survive, too bad.
These people need to be named and shamed.
BTW- how many "spa weekends " do we think Trump, Gaetz and Hegseth have covertly funded so that mistresses or one night stands didn't produce embarrassing consequences ?
I was wondering why there wasn't a "forced-birth" backlash to RFK Jr. Now I know. Wow.
Thank you Jessica for all of this reporting and for keeping us informed. I'd be lost without it.
Going to continue walking around in a fog of disbelief now, waiting for the next meeting of the democrats in my town who are starting to gather and figure out how we can safeguard ourselves, our kids, and our sanity together, locally.
Before Roe, in the sixties and seventies, the feminist underground — yes, there was such a thing — promoted a home procedure called "menstrual extraction" or "menstrual regulation," which safely removes — via suction — a woman's entire menstrual flow in about half an hour, with no doctors or men required. This is practiced all over the Far East (Thailand, S Korea especially), and even governments that forbid abortion allow, encourage, and/or provide this option. Officially, they view this as a woman "regulating her period," with no questions asked about what else — like say, a fetus — might be extracted in the process. It's easy, it's safe, and it's cheaper than any abortion. Pre-Roe, women's groups would train each other to do it, and it was just getting started as a viable way to end a pregnancy when Roe came along and rendered it moot. I wrote about this two years ago — http://www.leftjabs.com/2022/07/menstrual-extraction-and-diy-abortion.html — but few were willing to listen at the time. I'm wondering, given the events cited here, if the idea is worth another look. Being a man, I'm reluctant to push this too hard without a few influential women on board. But I do urge Jessica and her readers to investigate for themselves.
This almost made it into "You Love to See": the University of Maryland School of Medicine and U.Md.-Baltimore have a training program for nurse practitioners covering medication and procedural abortions and long-lasting contraception. Nurse practitioner Samantha Marsee who had little knowledge about abortion care completed the program and now is able to assist rural patients who want to terminate a pregnancy.
A 2022 Maryland law, the Abortion Care Access Act, expanded the scope of practice that nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and certified nurse-midwives can provide--including abortion. These professionals received priority in the universities' training program. Up to 120 practitioners are expected to receive the training in the next two years. (The Maryland ballot initiative to include reproductive rights protection in the state constitution passed by a large margin). See Sarah Varney, "Maryland is Training More Health Workers to Offer Abortion Care," kffhealthnews.org (Nov. 13, 2024), https://kffhealthnews.org/news/article/maryland-abortion-care-training-rural-np-pa-cnw/.
About the cabinet picks, Hannah Arendt addressed this in “The Origins of Totalitarianism”: “Totalitarianism in power invariably replaces all first-rate talents, regardless of their sympathies, with those crackpots and fools whose lack of intelligence and creativity is still the best guarantee of their loyalty.” He is deliberately choosing clowns with no expertise, especially those with histories of sexual predation and abusive behavior toward women, as a test and Senate Republicans will fail that test. They may express “concern” for one reason or another, but they’ll fall in line and find reasons to give him what he wants.
So true. It's so scary.
Gessen has a great piece in the Times. You might like it. Best I've read on where we are and why.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/15/opinion/donald-trump-orban-putin.html
According to Project 2025, which I read and discussed with a book club of Democrats Abroad. In it we see that the Department of Health and Human Services is slated to be shut down, and replaced by a Department of Life. So, will Kennedy be over it once there are no more Health and Human Services. By the way, they also plan to shut the Department of Education down, and move Special Education to Health and Human Services, which will be shut down, and Regular Education will be moved to the Department of Labor, which is promoting the idea that they should revive child labor and make workers in general- contract workers responsible for their own benefits like Uber drivers. So, there are going to be a host of problems generated if they enact any parts of Project 2025 document, and where Kennedy will end up is unclear.
But, but ...Trump assured us that he had NO connection to Project 2025. That was all imaginary.
As I said to my 23-year old nephew who did not vote for Trump, but did not have a problem with him, when he told me Trump said, he did not want a national abortion ban, "Trump is a liar!"
Anyone who thought Trump would nominate people who know what they're doing is a fool. Don the Con has three criteria for filling cabinet positions. #1 Absolute loyalty to Trump (the Constitution be damned), #2 No qualifying credentials (can't have anyone around that might know more or be more competent than the One), #3 all nominees must be incompetent (see#2).
4. Must be a sexual predator
And part of it is pure revenge. He relishes watching us squirm when he picks utterly bad people.
Working for the USPS for years they cant stop drug shipments. The postal inspectors dont have the man power. I think its 1/10 shipments are estimated to be stopped. Unfortunately it means getting from reliable sources will be gone and then you run the risk of getting faux drugs. Truly insane to rely on postal service to police drug shipments.
Re: forced birthers accusing women with inviable pregnancies of "killing [their] disabled children." I'm trying to be coherent and moderate in my language here, but just reading that made me scream. It's predicated on the assumption that women are too stupid and bubble-headed to understand the difference between a child or adult with a disability and a fetus with a lethal abnormality. That set me off because I have lived for 70 of my 72 years with diagnosed disabilities, things that I understood were health problems by the time I turned two. Back in the early 1950s, diagnosis of some of these conditions was delayed, as was true for me, because little was understood. Sometimes pregnancies resulted in unexpected stillbirths or miscarriages, and all doctors could say was, "we don't know." But even back then, women who experienced stillbirths or miscarriages did not confuse those with living children or adults with disabilities. Even women like my mother (10 pregnancies, of which 1 stillbirth, 2 miscarriages), who was very anti-abortion, did not confuse those losses with her seven living children (3 physical disabilities, 2 mental disabilities, and various severe health problems.) Did she grieve those pregnancy losses? Yes, to her dying day. But she didn't confuse the needs of her living disabled children with those pregnancy losses. And I do not confuse my 70 years of living with disabilities with a pregnancy loss due to a lethal fetal abnormality. The whole idea that this confusion could even exist is frankly an insult to women's intelligence. (Then again, they they probably believe we think with our wandering uteruses, so...)
Thanks for putting eyes on RFKJr. Try to remember folks, that this is a Democrat from a long line of powerful Democrats.
He's an embarrassment to a family that for years has carefully crafted their image, going back to Joseph F. and Rose Kennedy. That said, it seems that the current generation of Kennedys wants nothing to do with RFK, Jr.
The guy saw his uncle assassinated when he was 4, his dad at 9, in addition to a host of other family tragedies. He turned to drug use in high school and has obviously never over come so much trauma. But there is zero reason to inflict him on the rest of us.
He's a sell-out, con man, conspiracy nut, whose actual democratic voting family have openly and vociferously denounced his nuttiness.
His own family thinks he's crazy.
He is a nut job. His entire family spoke out against him. He is not a democrat. A long time ago back in the 80s maybe but absolutely not now
Dude wants to bring back polio, measles, whooping cough, and more. Perhaps next he and his anti-vax buddies will campaign on Save The Smallpox Virus! Or Restore The Black Plague! Or Conserve Justinian's Flea! Some people have way too much money and time on their hands. Maybe he could be recommended for a job scrubbing toilets in a rooms-by-the-hour motel. At least he won't harm anybody there.
Oh, yeah. One of the most crack-potty people I have ever heard.
I am trying to understand. Why must it be "all or nothing" from both sides. Why are the laws, Propositions, Amendments, and even Supreme Court Decisions so stupidly vague and biased that most of us can't understand them -- much less agree with them? What happened to "common sense?" Why must it be so hard? There is so much at stake!
It is a matter of definition: Some people (States) believe that abortion is "murder: the taking of an innocent life" -- a crime. Others do not. And "contributing to the delinquency of a minor" is a crime -- aiding and abetting.
If all you want is the right to an abortion in the "gut-wrenching" exceptions you have mentioned where it is necessary, it should not be a crime for anyone to save the mother's life. However if you want "abortion -- of any kind -- on demand," then we have a problem.
Seems like several times a week, someone on the news is found guilty of the crime of "sodomy." Over the years, the definition of "sodomy" has changed and some actions are no longer considered to be a crime or immoral by our culture. But some still are. We need to agree on abortion.
I agree with you: No one should have to die. Let's fix this!
I am trying to understand why what anyone else does in their life is your concern.
Because I care. And the fetus has no way to defend itself.
In certain states living, breathing women are being forced to put their lives and health at risk.
If everyone were willing and able to always make right choices, we wouldn't need laws. Didn't every one of us have mothers who "put their lives and health at risk?" I say, THANK YOU.
You didn't finish your sentence: "living, breathing women are being forced to put their lives and health at risk" for?
And who says they all were the better for it? You say thank you. I say well, if my mom had decided she didn't want to be pregnant and had somehow managed to get an abortion -- not the easiest thing in 1953 --I wouldn't be here to even know! There are no doubt plenty of women who in the pre-Roe days bore unwanted children because they didn't have any alternative. And whose lives were at risk because of it.
Are we only here for ourselves? I recently observed a situation and could only make intelligent guesses regarding the circumstances: I saw a mother who was taking care of her (I am guessing) 20-year-old totally disabled child -- a full-time job. I didn't try to ask or be nosey, but it was obvious that she was fully devoted to her child and was content to be so. I could only pray that they were receiving adequate assistance and support.
Have some women gone so far to the other extreme that they believe that taking care of a family provides NO satisfaction, accomplishment, or fulfillment?
What is "abortion on demand"? Isn't is simply the right to control ones own body? A man is not forced to donate his body to keep someone else alive. Why should women be forced to so?
I suppose that it is abortion "for any reason" and without "justification." Even "homicide" can be "justifiable." Did you just admit that the fetus is alive? No one I know of wants the mother to die, or to "suffer" or to be "forced against her will (except in China)."
The "Why?" is exactly the question we need to answer and agree upon. As I hope you know, many people are trying to "save the life of the fetus." And this apparently conflicts with the rights of the woman -- especially in the terrible and unspeakably evil circumstances of rape, incest, pregnancy of minors (I don't want to leave anything out). It is not my place to judge: You don't even have to defend yourself. I will not force you to do anything. I only ask that you consider ALL the consequences of your actions and make the right "choice." I understand that this is not "easy," or straight-forward.
No. Especially when the mother dies of an ectopic pregnancy, an incomplete miscarriage or other horrible issue, and leaves behind the orphans already here. And can you explain the zeal for criminalizing women who simply miscarry, a thing that happens to almost all women at least once...and usually before she even knows she is pregnant. Miscarriage, which folk more on your side want to send women to prison for, is nature's way of eliminating those embryos that are not fit for life. I know this because my first pregnancy ended in miscarriage. What came out of me, and I saw it, was a 2 inch long thing that was covered in fins, was the dead color of lead and appeared to have only a single eye. The doctors were frantic to 'save my baby', even after they saw it. I thought this was nuts. I never felt the need to mourn, but that is my spiritual view, because there was no way this could have lived. Yet, today, I could be prosecuted. That is one of the consequences that women now have to live with. And it is religious attachments to the misogynistic writings of guys 2,000 - 4,000 years ago, compiled into a religious doctrine that defines women as having been born from men (an utterly nonsensical notion) and being subject to them. Interesting point - in 400 ce, the council of Nice cheerfully removed from what we think of as the Bible an amount of writing that was about as much as they left. The Apocrypha, as these books are now called, makes much mention of the fact that Jesus found women to be the BEST students...and nowhere, in the Bible or the apocrypha, is abortion banned. Also, reincarnation was an article of faith among early Christians.
I cannot explain criminalizing women at all! My mother had twin older brothers, who were born too small to breath. They died minutes later.
I realize that you have no reason to believe that the book of Genesis should be taken literally, but I believe that we have the written Testimony of the only one who was there ( Adam was asleep at the time), that God MADE (through cellular regeneration?) Eve OUT OF one of Adam's ribs. Sounds like a "fairy tale," but what if it is actually true? I have never found one word in the Bible to be untrue. I realize that a lot of people don't believe it, but many do.
If anyone believed in reincarnation, it was before they heard the Scripture, "It is appointed unto men 'once to die' and then comes Judgment."
Tim, it seems obvious that neither of us is going to convince the other. I could talk until I'm blue in the face, but we are each coming from such different points of view - especially on spirituality - that I am not certain that we would ever agree on this issue. I respect your faith, but mine is very different. My huge concern is for the women of this country if people of the type of Christianity get their way. They are trying to climb to heaven AND gain absolute power here on the bodies of women. All with the blessings of their God, forced down the throats of all. As Nick Fuentes, friend of Trump, crowed " your bodies, our choice. Forever."
Nick Fuentes is a demon! And just because the KKK voted for Trump -- did you expect them to vote for Kamala -- THAT DOESN"T MAKE THEM MY FRIEND! I assure you, that THE God and His Son Jesus -- of the Bible -- does not condone or support the unrighteous. And your and my definition of "right and wrong" is not all that far apart. I realized years ago that each of us comes form different points of view and that God holds each one of us responsible for their own experience. I cannot expect you to understand what you have not experienced. Therefore I am trying to communicate with you, using my own vocabulary, to discover what WE DO have in common, and possibly introduce you to new ideas and vice versa. Then we can grow TOGETHER, and possibly become friends. I am meeting new friends in many unexpected places and growing in the process, And enjoying it.
Yes, two women have died because NOT DOING ANYTHING was preferable to trying to save the woman's life, because the DYING fetus still had a heartbeat.
"Go home and have it in the toilet", they're told.
If you pro-lifers were SO concerned about "life" you'd do something for the people already here. But you don't. You don't want WIC, you don't want to expand Medicaid so that low income women can get prenatal care, you don't even want free lunches for low income kids in school. That's not pro-life.
Abortion bans aren't about saving lives (obviously, it is not), they're about controlling women. The sooner you alleged allies figure that out, the better off women will be.
Thank you for this. Absolutely correct.
Doctors should save the mother's life -- the laws be damned.
I just discovered that two of my grandchildren get free lunches, and their mother is a School Teacher. I am going to offer to pay for those lunches, so that it doesn't get tacked onto the National Debt!
Do not abortion bans save the lives of fetuses?
He's a forced-birther here to troll.
Please see my above response. I am only trying to reach out and communicate. I am sorry if you consider that to be "trolling." But I learn very little from those who already agree with me. I am trying to earn your trust.
Why do 'we' have a problem with abortion on demand? Most women never have and may never contemplate abortion. But if you are a teenager or a college student with dreams and plans of your own and find yourself pregnant - FOR ANY REASON - why is it a problem to terminate an unwanted pregnancy because you are not ready or just don't want it or for any reason at all? Why is it anybody else's freaking business? Are we cattle or property? And why should men, who cannot get pregnant, have any say at all?
I almost said, "'I' have a problem," but it obviously affects you. And it affects the fetus. And, that brings us back to the definition of fetus and pregnancy and abortion, for that matter. Is the fetus -- male or female -- property? Every woman that chooses to have a child decides that the risk and investment of her time and resources -- her very life -- is worth it. Why do so many innocent babies have to die? Because they are not worth it?
Here's the problem: There have been over one billion abortions worldwide. Are you willing to say that every one of those is justifiable? Does the father of the fetus have any rights or responsibilities?
Tim, I appreciate that you want to work with us all, male and female, in order to fix what we broke. It will be difficult, however, to work with any women who do not subscribe to your beliefs about us, what god has designed for us, etc. But not impossible, if you are willing to acknowledge that we are not incubators whose primary function in life is have babies...which is what the religious, and merely autocratic, men want to enshrine as our only real reason for existence. I would imagine that most men would be highly offended if they were seen to be only walking sperm producers and money machines. JD Vance wants a policy that denies citizenship and the vote to any woman who does not bear x number of children or who either chooses to or cannot have children. Can you explain to me the how and why of that, and why men would not have to earn theirs? Would you support that if it meant ending abortion and 'saving babies?'
I do not know JD Vance very well, but I certainly disagree with what you have described. Americans are equal, regardless of their productive capacities -- including "procreation." You can't earn, purchase, or "deserve" Citizenship.
It is never correct to do wrong, in order to achieve a "right purpose."
Oh, one more thing, perhaps the most important. We see each other through the filters of our beliefs about the nature of the other. It is way past time that we examine these and learn to see ourselves and each as we truly are. Might be pleasantly surprised.
How do you type (and think) so fast? Absolutely! All I want is the truth, and I don't have anything to hide.
The laws are deliberately written to be vague, and to strongly imply legal consequences for health care providers.
The only people who ought to be involved in any decision about pregnancy and abortion are the woman and health care provider. Period.
Sir, NO ONE is going to force any woman in your family or ssocial circle to have an abortion. NO ONE.
Millions of women in China have been forced to have abortions against their will. Abortion is not "health care" for the fetus! Period.
Any vague law is wrong and should be discarded and replaced.
I have a question, as long as reproduction is a topic of conversation. Since guys are so concerned about falling birthrates and women's bodies, why are we not talking about the severe decline in men's fertility, globally, due to the nasty estrogen mimicking chemicals that mostly male owned and controlled chemical companies release into our environments, affecting every life form negatively? One might be tempted to think that considering things like this, which make a few men very wealthy, is just not economically feasible. Easier, and better for their bottom line, to attack women and force us to bear babies we don't want. Also, for your consideration, check out the increase in pregnancies that involve babies with birth defects, ranging from mild to catastrophic. No, let's not do that. Too uncomfortable to face the fact that male owned and driven businesses - like oil, gas, nasty chemicals, agribusiness - might have the most devastating effects on all of life, including reproduction. Nope. Far better and easier to force women, even if it kills us, to carry and give birth to the results of greed and the vanity that comes when religion teaches men that they are the lords of creation.
I do not intend to "make light of" any of the very serious and urgent problems you have identified. Do these male leaders not have ANY women to help direct them?
PLEASE take over the world and fix these problems. Or at least, withhold sex from all men until they fix them! SAVE THE WORLD!
Yes, Tim, there are women who do awful things, politically and personally. And the whole idea of one gender taking over everything is so not the point, although it has to acknowledged that the preponderance of folk who run religions, make laws and create toxic environments are men. I think that that is because women are more often kept out of the decision and law making processes. In my, admittedly never terribly humble, opinion, the solutions have to include men becoming comfortable with women in all areas, including leadership, and both sexes learning to actually work together. Without attempts to own and control anyone, in the name of God or Goddess or Science or Art or anything. The idiotic game of king on the mountain that has been played for soooo long has to stop. There is no king, there is no mountain to own or conquer. There is only Now. There are only people living with a world we share with so many other lives.
Communicating and working with you is exactly what I am trying to do. And SOMEBODY has got to fix the problems and clean up the messes our leaders -- male and female, in no particular order -- have made, before it is too late. And because I just can't believe that they are really THAT stupid, I am concerned that "they" have been doing it ON PURPOSE. And if I ever find out that their purpose is "Treason," LOOK OUT! I will be happy to give the rest of my life to restore and preserve the Freedoms I have enjoyed for my family and loved ones.
You want women to justfy our choices? Frankly, since men take zero risks, except for parting with a teaspoonful of semen, and women's lives and futures are all on the line, kindly explain to me why men should have ANYTHING TO SAY about what a woman chooses to do with her own body and life. How about this? Since men are so eager to claim ownership of women's bodies and reproduction, women should have ownership of men's genitalia and reproductive lives. Maybe we should force men, the ones we think are worthy, to father endless numbers of kids. And support every one of them. After all, according to Monty Python AND god, "Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great. If any sperm gets wasted, God gets quite irate." Yes, men should definitely not be allowed to masturbate. Furthermore, NO WOMAN HAS TO JUSTFY HER CHOICES TO MEN OR ANYONE! Anymore than any man has to justify HIS choice to be a parent or not. So, guys, stop clutching your pearls over the babies. When we terminate, they are not much more than a collection of cellular possibilities, with the profoundly sad exceptions when a truly wanted pregnancy has to end because the fetus is not viable or the mother's life is in danger. Both scenarios also being attacked. So, you try to convince me that many men give a rat's ass or a tinkers damn for the lives and rights of women, when they are doing everything they can to enslave and kill us. For thousands of years, men have assumed it was their god-given right to own and control women. No more, dudes. If I have my druthers, and I am a 74 year old happily married mother of 4 and grandmother of 4, we women will walk away and do zero for men...until you guys finally grow up and recognize our humanity and our complete right to self-determination...in all things.
I suppose you are correct that if men make no commitment, then they are taking no risk. Yes, you should hold men responsible. The fathers of three of my grandchildren are not to be found: I am having to fill in for them (with NO COMPLAINTS!).
You are very close to confirming what the Bible says in 1Cor. 7:4: "The wife's body belongs to the husband and likewise the husband's body belongs to the wife." Indeed, they become "one flesh" and hopefully, "one spirit." The result: one "family."
So what makes a man "worthy" to father your children?
Let me make sure I understand what you are saying: The "essence" -- what the fetus actually is -- is determined by the mother's choice: If the fetus is unwanted, it is a "collection of cellular possibilities." But if the "product of conception" is wanted, then and only then is the fetus a living human being. As the umpire said, "It ain't nothing, until I call it!" It's terrible when the game ends on a wrong call.
If men have mistreated and used you as slaves, I am sorry. A "real man" gives his life for his wife and children, no questions asked.
Yes, you have the right to "self-determination," but you don't have the power to control or define the consequences of your choices. In the case of abortion -- the death of your child.
Tim, you are obviously an intelligent man with deeply held convictions. I am sorry that your arguments seem to be from a solely religious point of view. Perhaps you can help me to understand why a religious belief should outweigh the majority who do not share that belief or that religion, to the point of basically defining women as property and cattle. For that is what we are if men who believe as you do, the House speaker comes to mind, have their way. Women will not have religion or the laws that come out of it determine, any longer, the courses of our lives. We are not owned, by God or man.
I have been taught and shown that men are to "sacrifice" themselves for their wives and children. We sure haven't done a very good job.
First of all, I was not raised that way, nor taught in Church, that men could treat woman as "property." Perhaps, I have been in a "bubble." Because "religion" has been given such a bad name, I am realizing that many people don't even believe that there is such a thing as "True Religion" any more. Many have never seen it "IN ACTION!" I am trying to regain your trust, by "re-presenting" the genuine Jesus. And He redeemed -- BOUGHT US BACK -- if we will only believe Him.
Abraham Lincoln once said, "It is very doubtful if the majority is ever correct." And that is why historically, Democracy doesn't last. However, I believe that our Declaration of Independence gives you the right to rebel against "tyranny." Just don't get too independent.
in the United States, you cannot be forced to keep someone else alive, even if they are in immediate danger of death. This is because bodily autonomy is a fundamental human right, and people have the right to make decisions about their own bodies.
Here are some examples of bodily autonomy:
You cannot be forced to donate your organs to someone in need of a transplant.
You cannot be forced to agree to be surgically attached to someone else for a prolonged period of time.
You have the right to make decisions about whether and when to have children.
The Supreme Court has interpreted the 14th Amendment's Liberty Clause to protect individual decisions about bodily autonomy. International human rights agreements also protect bodily autonomy.
Please tell me if ANY statement in the following is untrue:
The Inconvenient Truth (A Parable) There once was a woman who lived in a house. The woman occupied the house, but did not own the house. The Landlord owned the house. The woman had a visitor and the Landlord sent a baby to live in the house. The woman did not want the baby to live in the house. The woman asked the doctor to remove the baby from the house. The Landlord said, "You should not remove my baby, because it cannot live outside of the house yet." The woman said, "It is my house, and my baby, and I cannot live with this baby: Therefore, I will pay the doctor to remove the baby from my house." And the Landlord said, "Please do not kill my baby!" And the woman said, "I will do what I want!" The Landlord said, "If you do not repent and acknowledge the Truth, you will surely die." So the Landlord took the baby to live in His House and the woman died. The doctor died also. The End. P.S. The Landlord died too, so that the baby, the woman, and the doctor might live.
That is bull, fr9m beginning to end. The assumption that the landlord - read god and men - own the house - read the body and womb - of the woman. Oh, where do I begin? Firstly, you assume that YOUR version of g9d is THE god. What about the women whose version of god is a goddess? One who supports women's choices and considers abortion well within a woman's right? Religion has no place as a coercive force in this. Secondly, there is no argument. A man has no right to demand that a woman put her life and future on the line so that 'his' seed can live.
Please don't read your interpretation into the story: The ONLY Landlord is God (The Lord Jesus) and since he created our bodies, they belong to him and we are stewards. At conception, God sends the spirit of the fetus into its own body -- separate from its mothers, with its own blood-type. The only man is the visitor, who apparently "splits." Unless the doctor happens to be a man. Would a woman goddess send a baby to live in the womb, only to have it aborted? That would be rather cruel. And my God took the baby to live forever with Him. And He invites and has made the Way for the woman and the doctor to also make that important choice. Is there anything wrong with a God like that?
If the landlord had raised his own baby, this wouldn't have been a problem.
Please keep your religion out of this.
The Landlord has given us the opportunity and responsibility to raise our children, and has promised to help us do it. Religion or not, is it true?
I agree with everything you just said. I cannot force you to keep the fetus alive. But do you have the right to kill the fetus? Which is what abortion does.
Actually, I have another, simple question. Considering that the religious, and other, right wing has consistently refused to support women and the children AFTER the kids are born, even when the mother is poor or the child has serious disabilities, leaving them twisting in the wind, how is it that forced birth is pushed? Trumps folk would remove every protection, from the aforementioned to education and housing and health-care. How can anyone justify forcing women to give birth and then making damned sure that she is so impoverished and exhausted that those kids get to live in the hell that patriarchy hath wrought? I think that it is you guys who have to justify to women why we should pay the slightest attention to what you say and want.
Apparently the Church -- including myself -- has failed to make the crux of your argument null and void. It is not supposed to be that way. When Christianity began 2000 years ago, all over the Roman world, unwanted babies were abandoned to the elements and left to die. Christians rescued these children and raised them for their own. WE should be doing this even now. There are a few assisting mothers and children, but apparently not enough. If the Church was doing its job, we wouldn't need the government to butt in!
Yes, yes we do have that right. Period.
What else do you have the "right to kill." Aren't there laws against "cruelty to animals?"
Are you really hearing people being prosecuted for sodomy? I have never heard such a thing these days and always assumed sodomy laws were off the books.
Not in Missouri, especially when it involves children. It makes the news.
This is important information Jessica. I knew it would be a matter of time before they made mifepristone a controlled substance. Also Texas passed a bill regarding porno sites. People used VPN’s to get around this. Gosh my heart goes out to all who want to start a family. I don’t have kids and if I was 22 again I’d be 4B for sure. Self preservation.
I have a great idea. Since the menz are so concerned that women might do something with their own bodies that with which said menz disagree, let's just cut to the chase. Admit, dudes, that what you are really drooling to do is 1) make being female a quasi-crime and, to make certain that every sperm is safe, just make a law requiring every woman, as soon as the state knows that she is pregnant, to be arrested and placed in a state-run "maternity home." 2) And, to prevent women from keeping their pregnancies secret, make a law that every girl, right after her first period, must have a tracking device placed in her womb or such that will signal the local police as soon as the pregnancy hormones kick in, Simple, yes? After all, the ways in which the menz are treating us and talking about us, it is clear that they do not consider us human. Or adults. Or as having any value outside of whore and incubators. BTW, the above was all suggested, about 40 years ago, in a sci-fi magazine called Omni.
Let's also point out that the menz don't want to have ANY responsibility for the babeez.
It’s pretty rich that someone in Texas wants to outlaw pro choice websites. Texas has (had?) a law, which ended up at SCOTUS, forbidding web hosts from filtering out (implicitly right wing) content.
Just want to say for those who don't know about how the Texas legislature works: this is terrible, but because of the way our legislature is structured (one six-month session every two years, thanks Reconstruction constitution!) a lot of bills will die in committee and or in the rush to pass important/priority bills at the end of the session. The governor's priority this year is vouchers for kids in private schools and that's likely to take up a lot of time during the session beyond what's needed for basics like budgeting.
If the governor calls a special session about abortion issues this fall, I would be really worried. This is bad, but not super bad yet.
I believe you are totally correct. Our disgusting Governor is absolutely adamant about getting school vouchers passed and has expended enormous amounts of political capital on eliminating a large number of rural Republicans that opposed vouchers for what they would do to local school. Now he's got the votes. I do hope that issue gets bogged down somehow and leaves no time to attack abortion. -from an Austinite
This Houstonian agrees. Crappers