It varies but it does tend to be lower. Some states have higher rates of citizenship so that matters. And then lots of red states like to lock up people of color and disenfranchise felons. One place I've seen numbers sometimes is uselectionatlas (Dave Leip). That site is a treasure trove in general (though people complain that the colors are reversed because he's using old rules. It doesn't bother me; I get used to it really quick). It seems like the rule generally is whiter = higher turnout. States with frequent competitive elections also have higher turnout than states where one party always wins. And then it tends to be easier to register and vote in blue states.
Your last sentence gets to the heart of it. States like Colorado, which is all mail in voting, tend to have higher turnout rates than states that don’t.
To that point keep an eye on Nevada. They're all mail now but the state is not necessarily becoming bluer. And in general many Trumpy voters are/were low propensity. I'm not saying it will backfire, just that the evidence for higher turnout (always) helping Democrats is mixed.
Interestingly, there was a story in the AJC a couple weeks ago saying that Georgians got slightly MORE abortions in 2022 (when the 6-week ban went into effect) than in 2021.
"35,401 abortions were performed on Georgia residents in 2022 [416 more than in 2021]...But the number of abortions Georgians received in other states jumped from 287 in 2021 to 4,604 in 2022."
This doesn't surprise me. I've heard healthcare providers here say that the 6-week ban makes patients feel rushed, trapped and panicked, so they feel they have to arrange an abortion ASAP - even while recognizing that if they had more time to think through things and line up their resources, they might have chosen to continue the pregnancy.
Is there a list somewhere of all the towns in Texas that are outlawing transit?
I have to drive through there for a family event. I want to be sure that I don’t stop in any of those god forsaken (literally) towns and spend any money on gas or food.
If I could get to Austin and spend 2 days for the wedding and then get to the border without spending a dime on gas or food I would. Sadly it isn’t possible.
Here's part of the problem: they're committed. This morning my sister and I and ONE other defender took on a horde of at least three dozen anti-abortion whackjobs. They did their best to wear us down with the phony fellowship routine - "Hello sir, my name is Bob. What's your name?" "Hi Bob. My last name is Off. Would you like to guess my first name?" - and continuous Bible readings and preaching.
The true bright spot of the morning came about three hours in when one of the neighborhood residents joined us with her own homemade sign. She'd seen us driving by and was inspired to come and join us. I can't tell you how good it felt.
And my sister was in rare form. She actually made one of the Bible-readers cry - they had to form one of those stupid prayer circles around her to get her to stop. Displaying an absolutely stunning lack of self-awareness, one of the men started hassling her, asking why she was harming women. How's that, Christ-boy? Are you ADMITTING that yelling at women on the sidewalk in front of Planned Parenthood is harmful to them? Hello?
The hypocrisy is stunning. Anyway, these people are lunatics. The only way you're going to beat them is mustering enough opposition to get in their faces and make them pay a price for their actions. It's a shitty job, but somebody has to do it.
I volunteered as an escort back in the heyday of Operation Rescue. It was often very ugly, and very physical.
One quieter Saturday, my now ex husband and then toddler son came to get me at the end of my shift. My idiot ex had parked a block away, and walked up the street with my son. Naturally, a couple of the forced birth nutcases freaked out completely on figuring out the toddler was mine. Apparently, all the other reasons they condemned me to hell were minor next to screwing up their absolute certainty that no pro choice women ever actually carry a pregnancy to term. One of them actually told me that she was praying for my son to die, because that would be better for him than growing up as the child of a pro choice mother.
That one left me scratching my head. Abortion is the worst thing a human can do, but praying for the death of a toddler is a saintly act?
So here’s my question: what motivates these legislators to enact such unpopular laws? Are they dyed in the wool fundies? Do they rely on fundies for $? Has anyone examined this? I am truly perplexed.
The electorate is sorted in such a way that most politicians, of both parties, are in safe seats, and in red states, the number of safe seat Republicans is more than half the legislature. Unless or until -Republican- voters start defecting, the only way these legislators lose their seats is in a primary. And since 2010 Republicans have learned to fear losing to someone further to the right, because it's happened SO many times. So they mostly care about covering their right flank.
In theory moderates could start beating extremists in primaries, and reverse the dynamic, but it would have to be Republican voters that do that. So the rest of us are waiting to see if these pro-choice Republican voters, who we know mathematically exist, are going to do anything to change their voting behavior.
Yes, some are true believers. And the rest are afraid of their constituents who are believers, and the power of the forced birth lobby.
For decades, they got away with kowtowing to these people with very little pushback from Democrats. Too many Democrats relied on Roe to protect women, and didn’t really believe it would ever be overturned. That goes for both politicians and voters.
Meanwhile, some of us spent forty plus years screaming into the void - and were told we were being hysterical.
Yes. Fortunately they're only a subset of the Republican coalition, although as the rest of the party embraces authoritarianism for other reasons, it's easier for their goals and tactics to align.
I think first we have to establish that women have a right to this medical care. And then we need to see these actions as more about interfering with those women's rights, rather than about exercising their own free speech rights. Only then can we have the ability to stop it. They're bullies, and the rest of us need to stand up to them.
I am curious whether anyone on our side has plans to find someone to explicitly violate one of these laws or ordinances, get caught, have standing, and then challenge the law or ordinance in the court system. I'm pretty sure that's what the other side does. I understand that recruiting someone to be a martyr or hero is a tough sell, but at least you'd try to set it up the way you want to. I just wonder what actors on our side think about this possibility.
I don't understand how these laws are even enforceable. What woman goes around telling random strangers they're traveling to get an abortion? How would they even know she's pregnant unless she's late into a pregnancy? I wouldn't even get out of the car if I could. I'd just pee in a bucket in the back seat. Fuck these people.
The fear seems to be very effective though. I think that's what I was thinking when I wrote the original comment? :) And that's really helping them right now. They don't have to figure out how to enforce these laws. They don't have to file any charges or sue anybody. They don't have to defend their laws in court. They just open their mouths and women are terrified to access health care (and not just abortions but anything that could identify them as having ever been pregnant). And that in itself is damaging enough.
When the Texas bounty law went into effect, there was a doctor who performed an abortion past the cutoff and publicized the fact. I don’t know if anyone actually sued him, but I would assume if so, it’s still tied up in the courts.
That has yet to be seen. The birth rates only went up 3% in Texas and that could be explained by the end of the pandemic. Women are getting abortions whether they like it or not and they can't do shit about it. And that's what has them so pissed.
If they were caught before the abortion rather than after? Yes, idk. It just seems like the situation is everyone is terrified and these laws are rarely being challenged. Which really seems to do the other side a favor. Is the fear that if we ask the courts to clarify, they will only ever issue rulings in favor of the enemy? But often we're acting like they already have. So it's having the same chilling effect. I'm just wondering what the legal strategy is, or if we even have one anymore. Dobbs was supposed to be the beginning of the fight, not the end. Women getting care is the first priority, but in the long run that means we have to get policy changed.
Would the woman have to be pregnant? Remember the recent total shit decision from the Supreme shitheads in favor of a web designer who claimed that a nonexistent gay couple wanted to hire her. If that can work for them couldn't we follow their example 😉 If we could get an LGBT person to do it, even better.
All we need is standing. I'm not a lawyer but I do know that when courts don't want to take on a case, a finding that the party doesn't have standing is a reliable way to dismiss it. So I think you want to be fairly sure.
SCOTUS, and the appellate courts have been overlooking standing in deciding against reproductive rights, and gay rights of late.
The doctors suing to take mifepristone off the market are basing their complaint on “possible future harm” they might experience, for instance. That’s absolutely not how standing has been previously established. But the court in Texas, and the Fifth Circuit, both granted standing and allowed the suit to go forward.
Same thing with the father who sued in Texas to block Title X funds from being used to provide contraceptive care to minors without parental consent. He has suffered no harm or injury; he has teen daughters, but they have not sought nor received birth control from anyTitle X funded clinic, but both that same asshole judge in TX, and the Fifth Circuit allowed him standing. Teens in TX can no longer get birth control in Texas without parental consent.
It's absurd they can force a teen to keep a pregnancy but not to let them prevent a pregnancy? I read an article a while back that Texas has the highest rate of teen pregnancy of MULTIPLE children. These people are nuts.
"I don't know why I haven't seen one other publication cover this" - I think we know. They've all been asleep at the wheel for seven years. We're supposed to believe that what we're seeing with our own eyes isn't happening, that we're the crazy ones.
“And in Virginia, Gov. Glenn Youngkin plans to revive his proposal for a 15-week abortion ban, which—of course—he’s calling a ‘consensus’ limit.”
There isn’t even a consensus among republicans let alone between democrats, independents, and republicans.
Is a 15-week ban actually a 13-week ban since, for some reason*, they start the clock at the date of your last period instead of the more logical 2 weeks after.
God says learning about your body is the work of the devil. Yeah, that was one of the nice things about covid; this worked against them, getting them to drink bleach or whatever tf they were doing. It's amazing how long people who are that stupid can live under normal circumstances.
What we need is a list of adverse reactions, side effects and dangers of pregnancy (and the incidence of the same) exactly like those required by drug companies. We could then pass it out to all legislators along with the drawbacks to having a child like loss of pay, position at work, etc. Honestly, it's gotten so expensive that it's a wonder anyone can afford to have a child.
There was an article back in…2017(?) in which Dr. Warren Hern, of the Boulder Abortion Clinic in Colorado, noted that he had been tracking the many physical/medical problems for which women had sought abortions later in pregnancy at the clinic. He’s one of the few doctors that will perform third trimester abortions. At the time of the article, he had over 160 different issues on his list.
When you consider that about 40% of all births have to be financed by Medicaid, you start to realize that the cost of pregnancy is not affordable for a huge chunk of society. Imagine what a person making minimum wage must feel when they are facing a bill of $18 - 28,000 for care. And that's assuming nothing goes wrong.
If we as a society decide at some point that higher birth rates are an important goal, the only way to achieve that is to direct more resources to people having children. But conservatives don't like sharing, and helping. They try to achieve everything through force and fear.
I get your point, but I would think most developed countries try to direct resources to parents - tax deductions and credits, childcare subsidies, etc. The U.S. certainly does it. To the extent that people want more children than they're having, they just don't think they can afford it, it's a benevolent policy. The argument is just that the subsidies are too small and ought to be a lot bigger. We tried moving in that direction briefly during the pandemic (although I think it just stoked inflation). Obviously since the U.S. doesn't have universal health care the cost just of pregnancy is prohibitive, before even considering the cost of raising a child. So I think it's mostly a good policy, but focusing it on children rather than female fertility would probably make it less creepy?
Yes, creepy is a good word. Shades of 1930s Germany. I’m also really uncomfortable with the idea of bribing women into having more children than they may actually want. In the countries I’m talking about, it isn’t a question of a tax deduction for a child, it’s a reward for hitting a specific goal of X number of kids. Hungary offers a lifetime exemption from income tax if a woman has three or more children, for instance.
Yep. And include household expenses food and medical for mom. Sheesh.
According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), it costs $233,610 to raise a child to age 18. Adjusted for inflation, that figure is likely closer to $288,094 (see below for details). This figure includes the costs of food, housing, clothing, school supplies, healthcare, and more.Feb 13, 2023
Canada did a study and found that a woman with a bachelors degree lost more than $200K in pay for each child. I imagine that might include retirement savings. It’s more expensive than just raising the child to have a child.
And that would be the minimum standard. Most people want to invest more because most people have the goal of their children having better lives than they themselves did.
We are in dire need of starting that conversation. As you say it would be helpful if the data was all gathered in one place. Even though we all have good reason to believe that our legal system doesn't really care about facts, it still seems worth making the case; at least that demonstrates we tried working within the system first.
What part of most Americans don’t want their bans/restrictions do they not understand?
Also, I used to run in a circle with other women who would say right wing women are victims of the patriarchy, too and we should not criticize them. Look at where this has gotten us! Tolerance of their bull shit has resulted in a loss of rights. All women are not your sister.
There's a difference between being empathetic to how someone could engage in bad behavior, and condoning that bad behavior. And taking the victim characterization that far removes those women's agency, which seems sort of anti-feminist.
It does seem anti-feminist except that the society in which you were raised has a profound effect on what you believe or even notice. When I was a child in the 1960s & 70s, I watched programs like McHale's Navy, the Rifleman, and Dragnet and it never occurred to me that there were no women on those programs. It wasn't until I was much older that I realized that I just didn't notice when women were invisible and excluded. The programs that included women were rather silly and I didn't watch them (I'm thinking of Petticoat Junction). Women were included in comedy shows, but there weren't any women heroes. It had an impact on what I believed about my own future.
Later on we have Zena warrior princess, Andromeda, Firefly. Buffy the vampire Slayer 🧛♂️, Dark Angel, Angel, Bones, Amber Tamblyn who was in House, which also had other strong female characters. Plus, she has a substack newsletter. Short of the original Star Trek, all the spinoffs had multiple strong female characters. Largely the characters could kick the men's asses, physically, mentally or both.
There were a few shows from way back when that often featured strong woman characters. The Dick Van Dyke Show, where Mary Tyler Moore was the first woman to wear slacks. A scandalous thing at the time.
The Donna Reed Show. Sure, her character was kinda soft, but she could do anything that needs doing. Short of talking out the garbage, she not only did everything else, but did it to perfection. The oldest daughter was extremely smart, outgoing and just a lovely human being. The younger daughter could conive everybody else in the family.
WKRP in Cincinnati. 2 strong woman characters and at least 3 male characters that were bumbling idiots.
The Murphy Brown Show. She dominated the show
As for petticoat junction, most of male characters were dumb. Steve and Mr Drucker were the only bright ones. Kate could cook like nobody's business. Even though uncle Joe claimed that he ran the hotel, it was totally Kate in reality. The younger daughter could kick the boys assess in baseball.
Mary Tyler Moore was a comedy. Women were allowed to be funny. I never saw the Donna Reed Show so I can't speak to that. The other shows you mention were after the feminist revolution and I was an adult by that point. My formative years were during the 60's and early 70's. For example, my favorite cartoon was Johnny Quest where even the dog was male. Tom & Jerry, both male. Underdog. Bugs Bunny. Mighty Mouse. Rocky & Bulwinkle. Quick Draw McGraw. Felix the Cat. Popeye. My world was full of heroic males and the females that needed saving. If that is what you grow up seeing, that is what you think the world is and that was my point. It did eventually change, but not without pushing really hard.
Yes I have no doubt that's true, and you're only able to notice it when you're exposed to something else and you realize you've never seen that before and it's what's been missing.
I do think we ought not to criticize women for their personal choices, even when they are glaringly anti-feminist. The way I understood the original comment, I took 'right wing women' to mean those who were actively working to mold society to their beliefs and/or preferences. And that's where I would draw the line. Whatever bubble a person is in is an issue for their own life. But when they start trying to force other people into their bubble, when it becomes about everybody else's lives too, then protecting those other people comes first.
And so what seemed anti-feminist to me would be excusing and immunizing these women for what they're doing to other women, by saying they don't know any better and they can't help it. That reduces them to something like children, and I think they ought to be given more credit than that. Now perhaps the brainwashing of the patriarchy really is that powerful. I just think that at some level we have to believe that people have choices to make, even when the options available to them are mediocre because they live in an oppressive system.
I agree we can’t say enough that the “abortion exceptions” aren’t real. I also think we can’t say enough that there shouldn’t be time limits imposed because there are a million ways for a pregnancy to go wrong, and you can’t legislate around that.
I’d like to know in the states run by republicans what % of their voting population actually vote?
It varies but it does tend to be lower. Some states have higher rates of citizenship so that matters. And then lots of red states like to lock up people of color and disenfranchise felons. One place I've seen numbers sometimes is uselectionatlas (Dave Leip). That site is a treasure trove in general (though people complain that the colors are reversed because he's using old rules. It doesn't bother me; I get used to it really quick). It seems like the rule generally is whiter = higher turnout. States with frequent competitive elections also have higher turnout than states where one party always wins. And then it tends to be easier to register and vote in blue states.
Zach,
Your last sentence gets to the heart of it. States like Colorado, which is all mail in voting, tend to have higher turnout rates than states that don’t.
To that point keep an eye on Nevada. They're all mail now but the state is not necessarily becoming bluer. And in general many Trumpy voters are/were low propensity. I'm not saying it will backfire, just that the evidence for higher turnout (always) helping Democrats is mixed.
Interestingly, there was a story in the AJC a couple weeks ago saying that Georgians got slightly MORE abortions in 2022 (when the 6-week ban went into effect) than in 2021.
"35,401 abortions were performed on Georgia residents in 2022 [416 more than in 2021]...But the number of abortions Georgians received in other states jumped from 287 in 2021 to 4,604 in 2022."
https://www.ajc.com/politics/despite-new-restrictions-georgians-got-slightly-more-abortions-in-2022/NKQTR7DOOZFQXCJMMJTRSHUAVY/#
This doesn't surprise me. I've heard healthcare providers here say that the 6-week ban makes patients feel rushed, trapped and panicked, so they feel they have to arrange an abortion ASAP - even while recognizing that if they had more time to think through things and line up their resources, they might have chosen to continue the pregnancy.
That makes sense. The immediate effect of all of these laws is to terrorize women, and so they're responding accordingly.
Is there a list somewhere of all the towns in Texas that are outlawing transit?
I have to drive through there for a family event. I want to be sure that I don’t stop in any of those god forsaken (literally) towns and spend any money on gas or food.
If I could get to Austin and spend 2 days for the wedding and then get to the border without spending a dime on gas or food I would. Sadly it isn’t possible.
I tried Google. Nada. You might get lucky with a liberal newspaper or if planned parenthood or GLAD has a presence there.
Thanks. I don’t have to go for a while. Maybe they will move the wedding to a blue state. One can dream!
Here's part of the problem: they're committed. This morning my sister and I and ONE other defender took on a horde of at least three dozen anti-abortion whackjobs. They did their best to wear us down with the phony fellowship routine - "Hello sir, my name is Bob. What's your name?" "Hi Bob. My last name is Off. Would you like to guess my first name?" - and continuous Bible readings and preaching.
The true bright spot of the morning came about three hours in when one of the neighborhood residents joined us with her own homemade sign. She'd seen us driving by and was inspired to come and join us. I can't tell you how good it felt.
And my sister was in rare form. She actually made one of the Bible-readers cry - they had to form one of those stupid prayer circles around her to get her to stop. Displaying an absolutely stunning lack of self-awareness, one of the men started hassling her, asking why she was harming women. How's that, Christ-boy? Are you ADMITTING that yelling at women on the sidewalk in front of Planned Parenthood is harmful to them? Hello?
The hypocrisy is stunning. Anyway, these people are lunatics. The only way you're going to beat them is mustering enough opposition to get in their faces and make them pay a price for their actions. It's a shitty job, but somebody has to do it.
Mommadillo,
I volunteered as an escort back in the heyday of Operation Rescue. It was often very ugly, and very physical.
One quieter Saturday, my now ex husband and then toddler son came to get me at the end of my shift. My idiot ex had parked a block away, and walked up the street with my son. Naturally, a couple of the forced birth nutcases freaked out completely on figuring out the toddler was mine. Apparently, all the other reasons they condemned me to hell were minor next to screwing up their absolute certainty that no pro choice women ever actually carry a pregnancy to term. One of them actually told me that she was praying for my son to die, because that would be better for him than growing up as the child of a pro choice mother.
That one left me scratching my head. Abortion is the worst thing a human can do, but praying for the death of a toddler is a saintly act?
Jessica always says these people will tell you who they really are, and we just need to make sure everybody hears it.
So here’s my question: what motivates these legislators to enact such unpopular laws? Are they dyed in the wool fundies? Do they rely on fundies for $? Has anyone examined this? I am truly perplexed.
The electorate is sorted in such a way that most politicians, of both parties, are in safe seats, and in red states, the number of safe seat Republicans is more than half the legislature. Unless or until -Republican- voters start defecting, the only way these legislators lose their seats is in a primary. And since 2010 Republicans have learned to fear losing to someone further to the right, because it's happened SO many times. So they mostly care about covering their right flank.
In theory moderates could start beating extremists in primaries, and reverse the dynamic, but it would have to be Republican voters that do that. So the rest of us are waiting to see if these pro-choice Republican voters, who we know mathematically exist, are going to do anything to change their voting behavior.
That seems plausible. I guess we’ll have to wait to see if there’s a limit to that or if those in relatively marginal districts go over a cliff.
Yes, some are true believers. And the rest are afraid of their constituents who are believers, and the power of the forced birth lobby.
For decades, they got away with kowtowing to these people with very little pushback from Democrats. Too many Democrats relied on Roe to protect women, and didn’t really believe it would ever be overturned. That goes for both politicians and voters.
Meanwhile, some of us spent forty plus years screaming into the void - and were told we were being hysterical.
Your sister is a 🍑 Boo hoo.
Yes. Fortunately they're only a subset of the Republican coalition, although as the rest of the party embraces authoritarianism for other reasons, it's easier for their goals and tactics to align.
I think first we have to establish that women have a right to this medical care. And then we need to see these actions as more about interfering with those women's rights, rather than about exercising their own free speech rights. Only then can we have the ability to stop it. They're bullies, and the rest of us need to stand up to them.
I am curious whether anyone on our side has plans to find someone to explicitly violate one of these laws or ordinances, get caught, have standing, and then challenge the law or ordinance in the court system. I'm pretty sure that's what the other side does. I understand that recruiting someone to be a martyr or hero is a tough sell, but at least you'd try to set it up the way you want to. I just wonder what actors on our side think about this possibility.
I don't understand how these laws are even enforceable. What woman goes around telling random strangers they're traveling to get an abortion? How would they even know she's pregnant unless she's late into a pregnancy? I wouldn't even get out of the car if I could. I'd just pee in a bucket in the back seat. Fuck these people.
The fear seems to be very effective though. I think that's what I was thinking when I wrote the original comment? :) And that's really helping them right now. They don't have to figure out how to enforce these laws. They don't have to file any charges or sue anybody. They don't have to defend their laws in court. They just open their mouths and women are terrified to access health care (and not just abortions but anything that could identify them as having ever been pregnant). And that in itself is damaging enough.
When the Texas bounty law went into effect, there was a doctor who performed an abortion past the cutoff and publicized the fact. I don’t know if anyone actually sued him, but I would assume if so, it’s still tied up in the courts.
Someone mentioned that the other day, and I guess if/when there are developments we'll read it here.
That has yet to be seen. The birth rates only went up 3% in Texas and that could be explained by the end of the pandemic. Women are getting abortions whether they like it or not and they can't do shit about it. And that's what has them so pissed.
Seems like a lot to ask. There’s a possibility someone could be forced to bear a child, no?
If they were caught before the abortion rather than after? Yes, idk. It just seems like the situation is everyone is terrified and these laws are rarely being challenged. Which really seems to do the other side a favor. Is the fear that if we ask the courts to clarify, they will only ever issue rulings in favor of the enemy? But often we're acting like they already have. So it's having the same chilling effect. I'm just wondering what the legal strategy is, or if we even have one anymore. Dobbs was supposed to be the beginning of the fight, not the end. Women getting care is the first priority, but in the long run that means we have to get policy changed.
Would the woman have to be pregnant? Remember the recent total shit decision from the Supreme shitheads in favor of a web designer who claimed that a nonexistent gay couple wanted to hire her. If that can work for them couldn't we follow their example 😉 If we could get an LGBT person to do it, even better.
All we need is standing. I'm not a lawyer but I do know that when courts don't want to take on a case, a finding that the party doesn't have standing is a reliable way to dismiss it. So I think you want to be fairly sure.
SCOTUS, and the appellate courts have been overlooking standing in deciding against reproductive rights, and gay rights of late.
The doctors suing to take mifepristone off the market are basing their complaint on “possible future harm” they might experience, for instance. That’s absolutely not how standing has been previously established. But the court in Texas, and the Fifth Circuit, both granted standing and allowed the suit to go forward.
Same thing with the father who sued in Texas to block Title X funds from being used to provide contraceptive care to minors without parental consent. He has suffered no harm or injury; he has teen daughters, but they have not sought nor received birth control from anyTitle X funded clinic, but both that same asshole judge in TX, and the Fifth Circuit allowed him standing. Teens in TX can no longer get birth control in Texas without parental consent.
It's absurd they can force a teen to keep a pregnancy but not to let them prevent a pregnancy? I read an article a while back that Texas has the highest rate of teen pregnancy of MULTIPLE children. These people are nuts.
Yes they have been, and of course we know they won't grant our side the same treatment.
"I don't know why I haven't seen one other publication cover this" - I think we know. They've all been asleep at the wheel for seven years. We're supposed to believe that what we're seeing with our own eyes isn't happening, that we're the crazy ones.
“And in Virginia, Gov. Glenn Youngkin plans to revive his proposal for a 15-week abortion ban, which—of course—he’s calling a ‘consensus’ limit.”
There isn’t even a consensus among republicans let alone between democrats, independents, and republicans.
Is a 15-week ban actually a 13-week ban since, for some reason*, they start the clock at the date of your last period instead of the more logical 2 weeks after.
* I think that the republicans do not have a clue about how conception or pregnancy work. An Idaho lawmaker asked if a woman could swallow a small camera so she could have remote reproductive care. He was shocked to hear that the uterus is not connected to the digestive system. https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/idaho-lawmaker-asks-if-swallowing-small-camera-could-allow-remote-gynecological-exams/
The baby in your profile picture is adorable and the little girl is too!
Thank you! They’re my granddaughters and yes, they’re adorable.
That made me laugh out loud 🤣. They are so stupid about so much. Wait until one of them who is a climate denier gets heat stroke
🤦🤦🤦 [primal scream]
God says learning about your body is the work of the devil. Yeah, that was one of the nice things about covid; this worked against them, getting them to drink bleach or whatever tf they were doing. It's amazing how long people who are that stupid can live under normal circumstances.
It's amazing that people that stupid are even still alive
As usual a lot of sucky stuff, but at least no mention of kids undergoing terrible stuff. On the bright side, my shirts should arrive in 4 days😃
What we need is a list of adverse reactions, side effects and dangers of pregnancy (and the incidence of the same) exactly like those required by drug companies. We could then pass it out to all legislators along with the drawbacks to having a child like loss of pay, position at work, etc. Honestly, it's gotten so expensive that it's a wonder anyone can afford to have a child.
Julie,
There was an article back in…2017(?) in which Dr. Warren Hern, of the Boulder Abortion Clinic in Colorado, noted that he had been tracking the many physical/medical problems for which women had sought abortions later in pregnancy at the clinic. He’s one of the few doctors that will perform third trimester abortions. At the time of the article, he had over 160 different issues on his list.
I've got to quiz my orthodox neighbors. Most have a minimum of 5 kids and one is pregnant with number 16.
When you consider that about 40% of all births have to be financed by Medicaid, you start to realize that the cost of pregnancy is not affordable for a huge chunk of society. Imagine what a person making minimum wage must feel when they are facing a bill of $18 - 28,000 for care. And that's assuming nothing goes wrong.
If we as a society decide at some point that higher birth rates are an important goal, the only way to achieve that is to direct more resources to people having children. But conservatives don't like sharing, and helping. They try to achieve everything through force and fear.
Several countries are already doing this. Special tax cuts, or financial awards for women who have more than X number of children.
Personally, it makes me *very* uncomfortable, and opens up an avenue for abuse, as well
I get your point, but I would think most developed countries try to direct resources to parents - tax deductions and credits, childcare subsidies, etc. The U.S. certainly does it. To the extent that people want more children than they're having, they just don't think they can afford it, it's a benevolent policy. The argument is just that the subsidies are too small and ought to be a lot bigger. We tried moving in that direction briefly during the pandemic (although I think it just stoked inflation). Obviously since the U.S. doesn't have universal health care the cost just of pregnancy is prohibitive, before even considering the cost of raising a child. So I think it's mostly a good policy, but focusing it on children rather than female fertility would probably make it less creepy?
Yes, creepy is a good word. Shades of 1930s Germany. I’m also really uncomfortable with the idea of bribing women into having more children than they may actually want. In the countries I’m talking about, it isn’t a question of a tax deduction for a child, it’s a reward for hitting a specific goal of X number of kids. Hungary offers a lifetime exemption from income tax if a woman has three or more children, for instance.
You might find this interesting
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/04/baby-bonuses-fit-the-nationalist-agenda-but-do-they-work
Yep. And include household expenses food and medical for mom. Sheesh.
According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), it costs $233,610 to raise a child to age 18. Adjusted for inflation, that figure is likely closer to $288,094 (see below for details). This figure includes the costs of food, housing, clothing, school supplies, healthcare, and more.Feb 13, 2023
Canada did a study and found that a woman with a bachelors degree lost more than $200K in pay for each child. I imagine that might include retirement savings. It’s more expensive than just raising the child to have a child.
And that would be the minimum standard. Most people want to invest more because most people have the goal of their children having better lives than they themselves did.
We are in dire need of starting that conversation. As you say it would be helpful if the data was all gathered in one place. Even though we all have good reason to believe that our legal system doesn't really care about facts, it still seems worth making the case; at least that demonstrates we tried working within the system first.
Good summary of a busy week!
What part of most Americans don’t want their bans/restrictions do they not understand?
Also, I used to run in a circle with other women who would say right wing women are victims of the patriarchy, too and we should not criticize them. Look at where this has gotten us! Tolerance of their bull shit has resulted in a loss of rights. All women are not your sister.
There's a difference between being empathetic to how someone could engage in bad behavior, and condoning that bad behavior. And taking the victim characterization that far removes those women's agency, which seems sort of anti-feminist.
It does seem anti-feminist except that the society in which you were raised has a profound effect on what you believe or even notice. When I was a child in the 1960s & 70s, I watched programs like McHale's Navy, the Rifleman, and Dragnet and it never occurred to me that there were no women on those programs. It wasn't until I was much older that I realized that I just didn't notice when women were invisible and excluded. The programs that included women were rather silly and I didn't watch them (I'm thinking of Petticoat Junction). Women were included in comedy shows, but there weren't any women heroes. It had an impact on what I believed about my own future.
Later on we have Zena warrior princess, Andromeda, Firefly. Buffy the vampire Slayer 🧛♂️, Dark Angel, Angel, Bones, Amber Tamblyn who was in House, which also had other strong female characters. Plus, she has a substack newsletter. Short of the original Star Trek, all the spinoffs had multiple strong female characters. Largely the characters could kick the men's asses, physically, mentally or both.
There were a few shows from way back when that often featured strong woman characters. The Dick Van Dyke Show, where Mary Tyler Moore was the first woman to wear slacks. A scandalous thing at the time.
The Donna Reed Show. Sure, her character was kinda soft, but she could do anything that needs doing. Short of talking out the garbage, she not only did everything else, but did it to perfection. The oldest daughter was extremely smart, outgoing and just a lovely human being. The younger daughter could conive everybody else in the family.
WKRP in Cincinnati. 2 strong woman characters and at least 3 male characters that were bumbling idiots.
The Murphy Brown Show. She dominated the show
As for petticoat junction, most of male characters were dumb. Steve and Mr Drucker were the only bright ones. Kate could cook like nobody's business. Even though uncle Joe claimed that he ran the hotel, it was totally Kate in reality. The younger daughter could kick the boys assess in baseball.
Mary Tyler Moore was a comedy. Women were allowed to be funny. I never saw the Donna Reed Show so I can't speak to that. The other shows you mention were after the feminist revolution and I was an adult by that point. My formative years were during the 60's and early 70's. For example, my favorite cartoon was Johnny Quest where even the dog was male. Tom & Jerry, both male. Underdog. Bugs Bunny. Mighty Mouse. Rocky & Bulwinkle. Quick Draw McGraw. Felix the Cat. Popeye. My world was full of heroic males and the females that needed saving. If that is what you grow up seeing, that is what you think the world is and that was my point. It did eventually change, but not without pushing really hard.
Yes I have no doubt that's true, and you're only able to notice it when you're exposed to something else and you realize you've never seen that before and it's what's been missing.
I do think we ought not to criticize women for their personal choices, even when they are glaringly anti-feminist. The way I understood the original comment, I took 'right wing women' to mean those who were actively working to mold society to their beliefs and/or preferences. And that's where I would draw the line. Whatever bubble a person is in is an issue for their own life. But when they start trying to force other people into their bubble, when it becomes about everybody else's lives too, then protecting those other people comes first.
And so what seemed anti-feminist to me would be excusing and immunizing these women for what they're doing to other women, by saying they don't know any better and they can't help it. That reduces them to something like children, and I think they ought to be given more credit than that. Now perhaps the brainwashing of the patriarchy really is that powerful. I just think that at some level we have to believe that people have choices to make, even when the options available to them are mediocre because they live in an oppressive system.
Everyday Texas becomes more and more a hellscape for women, a living nightmare.
I agree we can’t say enough that the “abortion exceptions” aren’t real. I also think we can’t say enough that there shouldn’t be time limits imposed because there are a million ways for a pregnancy to go wrong, and you can’t legislate around that.