My point is more the disparity of forcing woman to have children but once here to not help, with food, child care, the mothers health, or educating that child.
What we are seeing is the creation on a cast system. If you are poor you will be under educated and remain poor. But if you have the wealth to send your children to private school (with the help of tax payers) you end up in a better position.
For those so insistent to produce children why do they not improve the adoption process. For the most part it is need of shortening the process and making it less expensive.
For such a small number of people to influence so many law makers to jeopardize democracy is unconstitutional and uncontainable. Why any politician thinks they should be involved is truly undemocratic in just so many ways.
No. Adoption is an independent issue- it is not a solution for someone who wants to not be pregnant, doesn't want to go through the process of birth or c section, or for someone who wants to be pregnant but has a health issue that is making this pregnancy too dangerous for the mother or the fetus. You can talk about adoption in any other forum, but shortening the process and reducing costs for adoption is NOT related to most of the problems facing a pregnant woman.
I would like to see them asked if they know what percentage of births are accomplished via C-Sections (about 30%) and whether forcing women into major abdominal surgery is a “public good”. As a follow-up, I’d like to have them asked how many C-Sections one uterus can endure in a lifetime (doctors say no more than 3).
I can think of another one (I already shared this on a post of your instagram):
> Can you think of a single instance an exception for rape, incest, or the health of the pregnant person was used to obtain an abortion while it was banned?
I want this question to be asked because as you point out, Jessica, these exceptions aren't real, and if/when these GOP politicians provide anecdotes, I want them to be verified with proper context (or if they were fabricated, which is more likely).
I agree with all of this. The problem is too many media interviewers do an insufficient job and many politicians don’t allow those who would be willing to ask these questions to do their job. For instance, Youngkin only did interviews with right wing media while running for Governor of VA. That is why so many voters were fooled.
Politicians have basically stopped doing local town halls. Often times if they do hold one it’s by invite only, including press.
Local print media often simply reports PR releases from candidates running for legislative offices.
Who really needs to bring it up are constituents by flooding office phone & email systems. And mainly pro choice candidates (at all levels) because that is how the media will be forced to report it. While being interviewed they should bring up these issues in the form of questions for their opponents and stating their stance.
Further, since the pro birth Rs want to frame “pro-life”legislation around “I don’t want my tax dollars to pay for abortions” society needs better educated on the domino effect of where their tax dollars go when these draconian laws are in place. Way too many believe charity, hospitals and private adoption agencies absorb all these costs. Enlightenment would help counteract their argument.
Ds have got to state not only the emotional & adverse health messages stemming from horrific repercussions from these laws, but also the economic lens. Pocketbook issues and the hypocrisy of cutting safety nets while forcing women into needing those safety nets. The costs to public hospitals. The disadvantages of not having easy access to OBGYNs due to fear of prosecution & persecution. Etc. Etc.
I am with you Alison. Forced birth is forced poverty, and makes more people dependent on government and charity for a meager existence. There’s a cost there and we should press politicians on it. These are the same jerks who use the phrase “welfare queen” when debating school lunch subsidies!
A hidden cost, shockingly, is the increase in crime that is likely to emerge in about 15 years. This is because more kids will be raised not only in poverty but, sadly, in neglect. Many children who would have been aborted in a Roe world will be born in a Dobbs world and grow up with less supervision, enrichment, health and even love than a kid needs to thrive. More of them will be abused and exploited. More of them will become anti-social, emotionally stunted, morally bankrupt teens and young adults who are more likely to become dangerous to others.
I know this sounds like speculation but I base these concerns on a very interesting book by Malcolm Gladwell called FREAKONOMICS in which he presents evidence supporting the idea that the 1990s drop in crime was partially a result of Roe reducing unwanted children in such negative circumstances.
All that said, some zealots and their politician puppets will agree to any expenditure or risk in their quest to strip women of our independence and girls of their aspiration of achieving equality. We can only peel off the ones who are “all about the taxes”.
They are certainly diverting tax dollars to not only adoption agencies but anti-abortion centers as well and they're profiting a great deal from it. ACAs are taking TANF funding and making women and girls take Christian classes to earn "mommy bucks instead of giving them TANF directly. They also coerce them into trafficking their babies to adoption agencies. Because that's what it is. It's the definition of trafficking. These mothers aren't giving these babies up by choice let alone giving birth to them by choice. And they're trying to bring back maternity homes, as well.
Yes, Jessica, “there are an infinite number of circumstances” faced by people considering pregnancy termination. “Rape, incest, and the life of the mother” is an extremely incomplete list of so-called exceptions that are dutifully repeated by members of the press who end up helping misogynists represent themselves as “compassionate conservatives” rather than raiders of what should be the inviolable right to personal bodily autonomy.
I have a tendency to lose sleep imagining all the circumstances playing out in anti-choice states so, I’ve written a list of “100 proposed exceptions” that describe situations of lack of informed consent to pregnancy, health conditions and pre-existing responsibilities of pregnant people, as well as fetal abnormalities and circumstances of impregnators that may help people realize that abortion is considered by more than “irresponsible women and victims”. Think of developmental disabilities, inheritable disorders, dangerous jobs, homelessness..... Many of these circumstances would lead even minimally rational voters to understand that families and society actually depend on choice to avoid ruining lives and creating chaos.
First among the “proposed exceptions” that I believe would help convert supposedly pro-life people to defenders of doctor-patient confidentiality is AGE! No one who is actually pro-child can get behind keeping middle schoolers home to gestate and forcing people who are too small to deliver vaginally into LEGALLY MANDATED C-SECTIONS. Every interview and debate should include the question of whether the candidate would approve abortion bans that apply to minors, and if so, how young they are willing to go with their extremism.
I am seeking ideas for how to introduce my list, which is backed up by research on actual cases, legal language, etc. Into the public sphere. Thanks for what you do, Jessica, and for creating this place for people who want to be part of the solution to come together.
You could publish it on substack. I'd read it. As for the circumstances that "ruin lives and create chaos", seems like that is the whole intention. These extremists firmly believe women and girls need to be punished at all costs.
Beautiful article...needs to be spread far and wide! I would also ask the politicians to comment on the fact that attacks on women are historically the harbinger of a fascist slide while clearly stating the exact similarities of the Republican playbook to the Nazis. These include attacks on and oppression of women relegating them to home based baby factories for the state, attacks on birth control, state/party run maternity homes, attacks on sexual orietation and gender diversity, book bans and intellectual/academic cleansing with state controlled education, religious cleansing...on and on.
This deserves all the praise. My only comment is to answer the question, "How do these numbers square with their belief in democracy?" There's no conflict there; they don't believe in democracy. Their voters don't either. When confronted with the fact that the majority disagrees with them, they just imagine fraud, or that voters are brainwashed, or that the wrong kind of people are allowed to vote. If you force them to admit that's what the majority wants, then they quickly indicate that they're done with democracy and this country and ready to grab their guns and secede, all to preserve their own beliefs.
Your questions are so important and spot-on. Since my Newsweek story ran last Friday (I’m Childless Because of a Far-Right SC Church - I won’t link drop again but that’s the story), I’ve heard from every young woman in my life 20 and under. EVERY ONE. One is already in therapy because she is horrified of getting pregnant. Another is considering an IUD. She is 19. The mental health problems these bans are causing to all potential pregnant people are unconscionable. This is formative trauma. I’m living proof it impacts one’s entire life.
I just read your Newsweek article. I am so sorry you went through that. Also terrified of pregnancy, I had a hysterectomy when I saw the writing on the wall that Roe was destined to be overturned. I'm in my 40's and the thought of having to carry a doomed fetus filled me with terror. Luckily, my doctor agreed. I consider myself very fortunate.
I'm 40 and was on the fence about having kids. Def not having them now. Can't imagine being in my twenties and being slammed with this nonsense. Gen Z is gonna be out for blood the coming elections.
My point is more the disparity of forcing woman to have children but once here to not help, with food, child care, the mothers health, or educating that child.
What we are seeing is the creation on a cast system. If you are poor you will be under educated and remain poor. But if you have the wealth to send your children to private school (with the help of tax payers) you end up in a better position.
For those so insistent to produce children why do they not improve the adoption process. For the most part it is need of shortening the process and making it less expensive.
For such a small number of people to influence so many law makers to jeopardize democracy is unconstitutional and uncontainable. Why any politician thinks they should be involved is truly undemocratic in just so many ways.
No. Adoption is an independent issue- it is not a solution for someone who wants to not be pregnant, doesn't want to go through the process of birth or c section, or for someone who wants to be pregnant but has a health issue that is making this pregnancy too dangerous for the mother or the fetus. You can talk about adoption in any other forum, but shortening the process and reducing costs for adoption is NOT related to most of the problems facing a pregnant woman.
I would like to see them asked if they know what percentage of births are accomplished via C-Sections (about 30%) and whether forcing women into major abdominal surgery is a “public good”. As a follow-up, I’d like to have them asked how many C-Sections one uterus can endure in a lifetime (doctors say no more than 3).
I can think of another one (I already shared this on a post of your instagram):
> Can you think of a single instance an exception for rape, incest, or the health of the pregnant person was used to obtain an abortion while it was banned?
I want this question to be asked because as you point out, Jessica, these exceptions aren't real, and if/when these GOP politicians provide anecdotes, I want them to be verified with proper context (or if they were fabricated, which is more likely).
I agree with all of this. The problem is too many media interviewers do an insufficient job and many politicians don’t allow those who would be willing to ask these questions to do their job. For instance, Youngkin only did interviews with right wing media while running for Governor of VA. That is why so many voters were fooled.
Politicians have basically stopped doing local town halls. Often times if they do hold one it’s by invite only, including press.
Local print media often simply reports PR releases from candidates running for legislative offices.
Who really needs to bring it up are constituents by flooding office phone & email systems. And mainly pro choice candidates (at all levels) because that is how the media will be forced to report it. While being interviewed they should bring up these issues in the form of questions for their opponents and stating their stance.
Further, since the pro birth Rs want to frame “pro-life”legislation around “I don’t want my tax dollars to pay for abortions” society needs better educated on the domino effect of where their tax dollars go when these draconian laws are in place. Way too many believe charity, hospitals and private adoption agencies absorb all these costs. Enlightenment would help counteract their argument.
Ds have got to state not only the emotional & adverse health messages stemming from horrific repercussions from these laws, but also the economic lens. Pocketbook issues and the hypocrisy of cutting safety nets while forcing women into needing those safety nets. The costs to public hospitals. The disadvantages of not having easy access to OBGYNs due to fear of prosecution & persecution. Etc. Etc.
I am with you Alison. Forced birth is forced poverty, and makes more people dependent on government and charity for a meager existence. There’s a cost there and we should press politicians on it. These are the same jerks who use the phrase “welfare queen” when debating school lunch subsidies!
A hidden cost, shockingly, is the increase in crime that is likely to emerge in about 15 years. This is because more kids will be raised not only in poverty but, sadly, in neglect. Many children who would have been aborted in a Roe world will be born in a Dobbs world and grow up with less supervision, enrichment, health and even love than a kid needs to thrive. More of them will be abused and exploited. More of them will become anti-social, emotionally stunted, morally bankrupt teens and young adults who are more likely to become dangerous to others.
I know this sounds like speculation but I base these concerns on a very interesting book by Malcolm Gladwell called FREAKONOMICS in which he presents evidence supporting the idea that the 1990s drop in crime was partially a result of Roe reducing unwanted children in such negative circumstances.
All that said, some zealots and their politician puppets will agree to any expenditure or risk in their quest to strip women of our independence and girls of their aspiration of achieving equality. We can only peel off the ones who are “all about the taxes”.
They are certainly diverting tax dollars to not only adoption agencies but anti-abortion centers as well and they're profiting a great deal from it. ACAs are taking TANF funding and making women and girls take Christian classes to earn "mommy bucks instead of giving them TANF directly. They also coerce them into trafficking their babies to adoption agencies. Because that's what it is. It's the definition of trafficking. These mothers aren't giving these babies up by choice let alone giving birth to them by choice. And they're trying to bring back maternity homes, as well.
Yes, Jessica, “there are an infinite number of circumstances” faced by people considering pregnancy termination. “Rape, incest, and the life of the mother” is an extremely incomplete list of so-called exceptions that are dutifully repeated by members of the press who end up helping misogynists represent themselves as “compassionate conservatives” rather than raiders of what should be the inviolable right to personal bodily autonomy.
I have a tendency to lose sleep imagining all the circumstances playing out in anti-choice states so, I’ve written a list of “100 proposed exceptions” that describe situations of lack of informed consent to pregnancy, health conditions and pre-existing responsibilities of pregnant people, as well as fetal abnormalities and circumstances of impregnators that may help people realize that abortion is considered by more than “irresponsible women and victims”. Think of developmental disabilities, inheritable disorders, dangerous jobs, homelessness..... Many of these circumstances would lead even minimally rational voters to understand that families and society actually depend on choice to avoid ruining lives and creating chaos.
First among the “proposed exceptions” that I believe would help convert supposedly pro-life people to defenders of doctor-patient confidentiality is AGE! No one who is actually pro-child can get behind keeping middle schoolers home to gestate and forcing people who are too small to deliver vaginally into LEGALLY MANDATED C-SECTIONS. Every interview and debate should include the question of whether the candidate would approve abortion bans that apply to minors, and if so, how young they are willing to go with their extremism.
I am seeking ideas for how to introduce my list, which is backed up by research on actual cases, legal language, etc. Into the public sphere. Thanks for what you do, Jessica, and for creating this place for people who want to be part of the solution to come together.
You could publish it on substack. I'd read it. As for the circumstances that "ruin lives and create chaos", seems like that is the whole intention. These extremists firmly believe women and girls need to be punished at all costs.
OMG yes. This.
The best story I've read of yours yet. Jessica. Thanks for your dedication 🙏
Excellent questions. I'll be asking my NY Congressman Mike Lawler (CD17-R) these as soon as I can.
Thanks!
I hope you have the ear of at least a few journalists who get to put questions to politicians.
;)
This is brilliant.
Thank you!!
Beautiful article...needs to be spread far and wide! I would also ask the politicians to comment on the fact that attacks on women are historically the harbinger of a fascist slide while clearly stating the exact similarities of the Republican playbook to the Nazis. These include attacks on and oppression of women relegating them to home based baby factories for the state, attacks on birth control, state/party run maternity homes, attacks on sexual orietation and gender diversity, book bans and intellectual/academic cleansing with state controlled education, religious cleansing...on and on.
This deserves all the praise. My only comment is to answer the question, "How do these numbers square with their belief in democracy?" There's no conflict there; they don't believe in democracy. Their voters don't either. When confronted with the fact that the majority disagrees with them, they just imagine fraud, or that voters are brainwashed, or that the wrong kind of people are allowed to vote. If you force them to admit that's what the majority wants, then they quickly indicate that they're done with democracy and this country and ready to grab their guns and secede, all to preserve their own beliefs.
Very true.
This article needs to be on the front page of every GD major and minor newspaper in the country and NOW.
🙏🙏
Bold, blunt and morally astute! Thanks. Women are full human beings with autonomy. End of discussion.
Your questions are so important and spot-on. Since my Newsweek story ran last Friday (I’m Childless Because of a Far-Right SC Church - I won’t link drop again but that’s the story), I’ve heard from every young woman in my life 20 and under. EVERY ONE. One is already in therapy because she is horrified of getting pregnant. Another is considering an IUD. She is 19. The mental health problems these bans are causing to all potential pregnant people are unconscionable. This is formative trauma. I’m living proof it impacts one’s entire life.
I just read your Newsweek article. I am so sorry you went through that. Also terrified of pregnancy, I had a hysterectomy when I saw the writing on the wall that Roe was destined to be overturned. I'm in my 40's and the thought of having to carry a doomed fetus filled me with terror. Luckily, my doctor agreed. I consider myself very fortunate.
Amy, I’m sorry you can relate. I’m glad you were able to make the right healthcare choice to have peace of mind. I understand.
That is terrific news about your story being in Newsweek. : )
Thanks. I have a Parents’ Rights is a tool for theocracy” in Salon as of yesterday, too.
I'm 40 and was on the fence about having kids. Def not having them now. Can't imagine being in my twenties and being slammed with this nonsense. Gen Z is gonna be out for blood the coming elections.