While I was in college, I fronted the funds for a sorority sister so she could have a confidential, safe and legal abortion at a Planned Parenthood clinic. The baby daddy was an immature frat boy who ghosted her; he would not even go to the clinic with her. Afterwards I stayed with her to make sure she was okey. After she completed her engineering degree from a public ivy, this sorority sister became an accomplished professional. She got married and had two now-adult lovely daughters. Women need to have the right to make decisions on their own body.
Spot on. If the tables were turned and men had to make a decision to carry a pregnancy to term or not, I doubt they would give it a second thought. It would be a natural right for them. Makes you wonder about this Supreme Court (arrogant Maga 6), with 50 years of Constitutional right for women's access to abortion that their rational for over turning it was that it was "wrongly" decided. And Alito had to go back to the 17th century to find some misogynistic writings and judgements of jurist, Mathew Hale, that were offensive even in that era, to make his cockamamy argument. Of all the decisions that have been wrongly decided, like corporations are people, money is speech, and Citizens' United, these Maga 6 chose women's rights because, after all, there was no mention of it in the in the Constitution! The arrogance of these Maga 6 is astonishing, as if all their decisions are "rightly" decided. Well, I beg to differ.
It is mentioned in the constitution: 1st amendment (separation of church and state: all objections to abortion come from one and only one religion), 13th amendment (bans slavery. Taking control of a woman's body is enslavement), and 14th amendment (only discriminates against women).
Wendy, you're right that people supporting the right to decide what to do with our own bodies and our own lives need to be much better about showing how our Constitution already does expressly secure such right.
But I wouldn't focus on slavery in this way. The prohibition on slavery prohibited using the law to pretend that some people could (lawfully) be treated as the property of other people. The relevant prohibition in the 13th Amendment is on "involuntary servitude." Any form of "involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." Compelling a woman or a couple to support a fetus for some 9 months or to support a child for some 18 years necessarily and obviously is involuntary servitude.
The First Amendment also is highly and directly relevant in another respect. SCOTUS has long recognized that the 1st Amendment secures our "freedom of association." Compelling a woman or a couple to associate with a child for some 18 years necessarily and obviously violates our freedom of association.
The emphasis in this article about maternal mortality also is highly relevant. SCOTUS has repeatedly recognized that our Constitution secures the right of self-defense or self-preservation. That's one of the primary points of the Second Amendment. The same logic and principles that secure the right of one person to take the life of another actual person necessarily secure the right of a person to take a life that isn't even another person (a fetus) for purposes of self-defense or self-preservation.
Sandra, I'm with you on this one! The whole abortion thing was made up in the 1800s when men were pushing everyone but themselves out of medically treating people. They didn't like the idea that women could make decisions for themselves and end a pregnancy a man had planted, as though one night's activity were some kind of sacrament.
With whiny white men in charge nearly everywhere that counted and truly mentally ill guys like Comstock making up things as they went along, women were pushed down as far as those whiny white men could push them/us. They are still at it 150 years later.
Well, it's time we set up our own networks to provide care for women in need of abortions: stockpiling the drugs, enlisting courageous abortionists (not sure of a better term), and setting up underground medical operations that could help women in danger of their lives due to pregnancy complications. We need to find a way to make the hateful white men and the women who love them, irrelevant in relation to our bodily autonomy. The Janes showed us all the way. We have more sophisticated means to make this happen these days, so let's do it!
I did a quick Google on your book recommendation: Very Interesting! Here are some thoughts: There has been this false narrative going on for centuries that married women can depend on their husbands for “protection”. (That is usually not the case, ladies). While women have more legal rights on the books today, women should always enter into the marital contract with the viewpoint of “hope for the best, but plan for the worst.” For example, premarital agreements and not comingling your inherited assets are extremely important steps to take. Also, you should always maintain your individual identity (ie; Keeping my maiden name has been invaluable in my life). For anyone who has been divorced (Over 50% will be divorced in their lifetime), you know that your divorce attorney focused on the “business of marriage” compared to the emotional dysfunction at the end.
Good point, Sandra. So we should look to what men wrote about the rights of men and think about how to apply the same principles to women. A good place to start would be the words and sources I mentioned in another Contrarian piece on June 24, 2026 ("America’s Best Kept Secret: Progressiveness Is Popular"). You can find my by comments by searching for my last name.
Very corrupt and self-righteous SCOTUS. They should be ashamed, but they aren't. They're too laden with grift, good hours, perceived status, and great vacations!
Lisa Graves wonderful 2025 book, “Without Precedent…” on the rise of John Roberts to SCOTUS does a great job in detailing the facts to your point. Leonard Leo played powerbroker to the 💰 as well as the right-wing organizations like the Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society, which represents its members’ perverted pov of our country's founders’ Federalist Papers. Specifically, refer to Madison's Federalist #10, which was quoted and posted in part, earlier to this discussion. President Madison and First Lady Dolly are rolling in their graves.
Loved Lisa Graves' book. She pulled no punches about the kind of person Robert's is and the blatant cloud of corruption (and ignorance) surrounding his Court that he does nothing about. It is essential we make clear to the democratic majority (we hope) that Court reform should be on the top of our agenda. The sooner we relegate Robert's and his Maga 6 to the dust bin of history, the sooner democracy and values for the common good can be restored. Freedom is on the line.
Good point and good illustration of the point, Dawn! When we think about how and why our Constitution secures our liberty to live the lives we choose for ourselves, it's well worth seeing with fresh eyes how the words and principles expressed by the men who wrote and ratified our Constitution apply to the issues of our day.
in Federalist 10. Madison emphasized that "[t]o secure the public good and private rights against the danger of [any] faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed." Those were the obvious and vital purposes of our Constitution. Our Constitution was designed to provide "a republican remedy for the diseases most incident to republican government." Such diseases include "faction," which can easily result in a "tyranny of the majority," as Tocqueville emphasized in his book "Democracy In America."
To convince people to ratify the Constitution, Madison in Federalist 10 in November 1787 emphasized the vital importance of preserving the "diversity in the faculties of" various people. "The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is" an "insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. [Even so, t]he protection of these faculties is the first object of government." The protection of the diversity of faculties of the people is highly relevant here.
Madison's words here are some of the most powerful and most important ever written about our Constitution: "The diversity in the faculties [ ] from which the rights of property originate" creates a diversity "of interests" and "[t]he protection of these faculties is the first object of government." Those are words worth highlighting for the SCOTUS majority re: their violation of (and lies about) our Constitution in Dobbs.
These data confirm what I have always believed: Our society treats women as if they are a fungible commodity. Their primary use is to bear children. If they die, so what? Some other woman will step in to care for the children and bear more. So there’s no reason to maintain programs or laws that could make women’s lives safer or more productive. It’s as if the Republicans have joined the Taliban…
Was America Great before the woman's vote, the civil rights act, elected senators, social security, the income tax? I never understood what Great Again was striving for. And I bet most people are not sure either. I did come to understand that when a politician was anti-woke it meant that they were anti whatever you were anti. Easy to agree on antiwokeness when wokes are personal. Maybe "greatness" has a similar shade of nebulousness.
There is no end to attempts on the rights of half of the world's population. We have been trafficked, raped, paid substandard wages, told what to wear, what not to wear, denied promotions, denied care for health concerns specific to females, treated shabbily. Did I leave anything out?
The only lives the fascist party and its voters and fans are interested in saving is those of the unborn.
Once they are born, there is no interest at all, witness SNAP and Medicaid being cut off, health care unaffordable, guns being peddled to even the last idiot in the US, programs that actively speed up death in unwanted people of color and last, but not least, the death penalty fans.
Very important to keep this kind of refresher info coming! We must not forget just because abortion rights don’t impact us personally. The medical desert impacts everyone! Every female baby born in The United States is ENTITLED to be free and equal.
Thanks Jennifer and Joyce for this excellent report. Thanks for covering all the bases for how this assinine decision affects healthcare outcomes. The Supreme Court is anti-democracy.
Women are always at the bottom because literally half of all men in the US think women aren't actually people. Yes, half will admit they think women are some kind of inferior creature. And unfortunately, a certain percentage of women agree: they also think women are subhumans or second class. The main religion in the US, Christianity, openly teaches that women are subhumans, which certainly adds to this problem. Education of very young children about equality is the only way to stop this.
"Christianity teaches" is quite different from what Jesus teaches. Mary, mother of Jesus; Martha; Mary, sister of Martha;
and Mary Magdeline were prominent disciples of Jesus. Many women were central to the ministry after the death of Jesus, including patrons. Finally, here is what Jesus said about abortion ... 🦗 🦗 🦗
I've done that since I started voting in 1992 and in every election since. Politicians need to care enough to risk their reelection to codify women's rights and they don't. Neither the women or the men. Roe was overturned and the first thing the majority did was codify gay marriage, and good for them, but why didn't they codify women's rights? And this was Nancy Pelosi!! Really disappointing.
Yes, it is perverse to watch women of all ages agree to give up their power. Perverse and disheartening. I really don't think enough women know what it means to give up voting power. Once women's votes are even more diluted, or worse revoked, women will become even more economically disadvantaged and under control of men and complicit women who feel women are second class citizens and not deserving of equal pay, jobs or economic independence. And worse this bleak Gileadean future is sold as a shiny new reclamation of faith wrapped up in s vicious, Christian Nationalist bow on top. Gross.
And yet, some female white “Christian” nationalists agree with their husbands that the 19th amendment should be revoked and only husbands should be allowed to vote with one vote per family.
I say they can simply not vote. Works for me - one vote per family for those who feel that way. Do the math!
Why would the minority (men) want to do anything to help their (potentially) majority oppressors (women). They got the vote and then 2 World Wars, huge budget deficits, and the women have been taking men's jobs? C'mon we even let a couple on the Supreme Court.
YEA!! fewer OBs!!! for a retired Nurse Practioner/Certified Nurse Midwife who was licensed in over 10 states and Guam practicing in rural/inner city hospitals, birth centers, home births maternity discare is TOXIC to women, babies, families. totally unacceptable to have over 25% c-section rate-just look at oregon's vital statistics. births and c-section rates. and oregon is one of the best states!! the patriarchy is alive and well in the MD and the OB world. i was once told by a hospital administrator in alabama, of all states!! BS=bullshit, MS=more shit, PHD=piled higher and deeper, MD? Mighty Deity. i could tell you many many horror stories from the maternity "wards" why is the usa so low in world stat comparison?
One thing that we can all do is NEVER, EVER use the phrase "abortion rights". This trivializes the issue and makes people think "baby killer" or some such thing. Say anything else: reproductive rights, women's rights, right to bodily autonomy, rights for women to receive medical treatment, rights for women to make their own medical decisions. Reframe it. Because it isn't just about abortion; the Forced Birthers also want to take away contraception, sex education, and the right of women to vote, followed by the right of women to work, go to school, decide what to wear, and possibly whether they can even leave their house. They call them the "Christian Taliban" for a reason.
Thank you for this report. I honestly despair for the plight of women in the United States and am frustrated by the lack of coverage in all forms of media. It's like we are still afraid to speak up for women's rights, afraid to alienate people by treating women as autonomous human beings. Until more people take the time to talk about women's rights, write about women's rights and take a stand to codify women's rights, nothing will change. And I am honestly disappointed that with the most powerful women in the Democratic Party, and powerful Democratic majorities in Congress in the last 20 plus years no one codified women's rights, and now look where we are. I guess it's never the right time for women? I can't express my disappointment enough.
Shouldn’t vasectomy patients and their physicians be subject to the same prohibitions as folks who need abortions? Does a vasectomy have any medical purposes comparable to those of pregnancy?
What about mandatory vasectomies for all men who do not commit to fathering more children? It would decrease the number of unplanned pregnancies which would decrease the number of abortions.
What about tight controls on Viagra and other ED drugs? That would similarly decrease the number of abortions. Perhaps a vasectomy would be a requirement for a prescription for such drugs.
What about strict limits on which men can father children? We could throttle the number of unplanned pregnancies and the overall birthrate.
The best way to decrease the number of abortions, for those that are opposed to abortion, is to decrease the number of pregnancies. Protestants have no religious reason to object to contraception. Sex education is another way to do that. Also, programs that would empower young women to make decisions about their own lives, would decrease the number of unplanned pregnancies, because the women would choose to be sexually active when they are ready, not when some man pressures them.
Sounds like a plan to me. How about requiring every father who doesnot take responsibility for their first offspring to have a vasectomy. That has all sorts of potential benefits.
I think the Viagra and vasectomy suggestions are good rhetorical devices to force the question of bodily autonomy.
Men will literally cross their legs when you say "vasectomy." I don't really understand it because it isn't like the urologist walks in with a machete and no anesthesia. There are benefits for men and their partners.
The Viagra suggestion is useful because it makes men afraid to argue with it, lest someone think less of them. Again, I don't understand it because it is nobody's business what goes on in your bedroom.
Either way, it forces the man to talk about bodily autonomy. Then he has to explain why it is different than abortion. He has to explain why a sperm is not living, but a fertilized egg is not living. That's a argument based on faith, because there is no argument based on biology.
Decreasing abortion by decreasing unplanned pregnancies is a good faith proposal that anyone who opposes abortion should agree with. (I know birth control is complicated for some Catholics, so I accept their religious beliefs.) It decreases the number of "lives lost" without controlling women. Some anti-abortion activists are willing to dialog about it, but many reveal that they actually want more women to give birth against their wills'. They lament a drop in pregnancies, which seems like a good thing because it decreases abortions.
Lots of comments on here about repealing the 19th Amendment/taking away women's right to vote. Ladies, if that happens, then you should not have to pay taxes. After all, this country was founded on the principle of no taxation without representation, right?
(For the record, I think EVERYONE over the age of 18 should have the right to vote, not just white Christian men.)
Yes, medication abortion is a great thing, but it doesn't help women in these states who want to be pregnant. If a woman who wants to be pregnant suffers a miscarriage or any other obstetric problem, she is in serious trouble if she happens to live in a Forced Birth state. The treatments for miscarriage are all exactly the same as those used to perform an elective abortion (aka, banned), and if she has a medical issue that is normally treated by a swift abortion, she won't be able to get one. And the studies are rolling out and showing that women in these abortion-ban states are not receiving proper care during pregnancy and even during childbirth, which is causing vast amounts of completely preventable morbidity and mortality of women and infants. It's the complete opposite of being "pro life".
While I was in college, I fronted the funds for a sorority sister so she could have a confidential, safe and legal abortion at a Planned Parenthood clinic. The baby daddy was an immature frat boy who ghosted her; he would not even go to the clinic with her. Afterwards I stayed with her to make sure she was okey. After she completed her engineering degree from a public ivy, this sorority sister became an accomplished professional. She got married and had two now-adult lovely daughters. Women need to have the right to make decisions on their own body.
Spot on. If the tables were turned and men had to make a decision to carry a pregnancy to term or not, I doubt they would give it a second thought. It would be a natural right for them. Makes you wonder about this Supreme Court (arrogant Maga 6), with 50 years of Constitutional right for women's access to abortion that their rational for over turning it was that it was "wrongly" decided. And Alito had to go back to the 17th century to find some misogynistic writings and judgements of jurist, Mathew Hale, that were offensive even in that era, to make his cockamamy argument. Of all the decisions that have been wrongly decided, like corporations are people, money is speech, and Citizens' United, these Maga 6 chose women's rights because, after all, there was no mention of it in the in the Constitution! The arrogance of these Maga 6 is astonishing, as if all their decisions are "rightly" decided. Well, I beg to differ.
“If men got pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament”. - Gloria Steinem
It is mentioned in the constitution: 1st amendment (separation of church and state: all objections to abortion come from one and only one religion), 13th amendment (bans slavery. Taking control of a woman's body is enslavement), and 14th amendment (only discriminates against women).
Wendy, you're right that people supporting the right to decide what to do with our own bodies and our own lives need to be much better about showing how our Constitution already does expressly secure such right.
But I wouldn't focus on slavery in this way. The prohibition on slavery prohibited using the law to pretend that some people could (lawfully) be treated as the property of other people. The relevant prohibition in the 13th Amendment is on "involuntary servitude." Any form of "involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." Compelling a woman or a couple to support a fetus for some 9 months or to support a child for some 18 years necessarily and obviously is involuntary servitude.
The First Amendment also is highly and directly relevant in another respect. SCOTUS has long recognized that the 1st Amendment secures our "freedom of association." Compelling a woman or a couple to associate with a child for some 18 years necessarily and obviously violates our freedom of association.
The emphasis in this article about maternal mortality also is highly relevant. SCOTUS has repeatedly recognized that our Constitution secures the right of self-defense or self-preservation. That's one of the primary points of the Second Amendment. The same logic and principles that secure the right of one person to take the life of another actual person necessarily secure the right of a person to take a life that isn't even another person (a fetus) for purposes of self-defense or self-preservation.
N-ice.
Sandra, I'm with you on this one! The whole abortion thing was made up in the 1800s when men were pushing everyone but themselves out of medically treating people. They didn't like the idea that women could make decisions for themselves and end a pregnancy a man had planted, as though one night's activity were some kind of sacrament.
With whiny white men in charge nearly everywhere that counted and truly mentally ill guys like Comstock making up things as they went along, women were pushed down as far as those whiny white men could push them/us. They are still at it 150 years later.
Well, it's time we set up our own networks to provide care for women in need of abortions: stockpiling the drugs, enlisting courageous abortionists (not sure of a better term), and setting up underground medical operations that could help women in danger of their lives due to pregnancy complications. We need to find a way to make the hateful white men and the women who love them, irrelevant in relation to our bodily autonomy. The Janes showed us all the way. We have more sophisticated means to make this happen these days, so let's do it!
Relevant book: The Woman They Could Not Silence. It was eye-opening for me!
I did a quick Google on your book recommendation: Very Interesting! Here are some thoughts: There has been this false narrative going on for centuries that married women can depend on their husbands for “protection”. (That is usually not the case, ladies). While women have more legal rights on the books today, women should always enter into the marital contract with the viewpoint of “hope for the best, but plan for the worst.” For example, premarital agreements and not comingling your inherited assets are extremely important steps to take. Also, you should always maintain your individual identity (ie; Keeping my maiden name has been invaluable in my life). For anyone who has been divorced (Over 50% will be divorced in their lifetime), you know that your divorce attorney focused on the “business of marriage” compared to the emotional dysfunction at the end.
Good point, Sandra. So we should look to what men wrote about the rights of men and think about how to apply the same principles to women. A good place to start would be the words and sources I mentioned in another Contrarian piece on June 24, 2026 ("America’s Best Kept Secret: Progressiveness Is Popular"). You can find my by comments by searching for my last name.
Very corrupt and self-righteous SCOTUS. They should be ashamed, but they aren't. They're too laden with grift, good hours, perceived status, and great vacations!
And apparently fell asleep in Constitutional Law 101.
Bankrolled by Leonard Leo and his network of rightwing millionaires.
Lisa Graves wonderful 2025 book, “Without Precedent…” on the rise of John Roberts to SCOTUS does a great job in detailing the facts to your point. Leonard Leo played powerbroker to the 💰 as well as the right-wing organizations like the Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society, which represents its members’ perverted pov of our country's founders’ Federalist Papers. Specifically, refer to Madison's Federalist #10, which was quoted and posted in part, earlier to this discussion. President Madison and First Lady Dolly are rolling in their graves.
Thanks for recommending this book
Loved Lisa Graves' book. She pulled no punches about the kind of person Robert's is and the blatant cloud of corruption (and ignorance) surrounding his Court that he does nothing about. It is essential we make clear to the democratic majority (we hope) that Court reform should be on the top of our agenda. The sooner we relegate Robert's and his Maga 6 to the dust bin of history, the sooner democracy and values for the common good can be restored. Freedom is on the line.
Good point and good illustration of the point, Dawn! When we think about how and why our Constitution secures our liberty to live the lives we choose for ourselves, it's well worth seeing with fresh eyes how the words and principles expressed by the men who wrote and ratified our Constitution apply to the issues of our day.
in Federalist 10. Madison emphasized that "[t]o secure the public good and private rights against the danger of [any] faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed." Those were the obvious and vital purposes of our Constitution. Our Constitution was designed to provide "a republican remedy for the diseases most incident to republican government." Such diseases include "faction," which can easily result in a "tyranny of the majority," as Tocqueville emphasized in his book "Democracy In America."
To convince people to ratify the Constitution, Madison in Federalist 10 in November 1787 emphasized the vital importance of preserving the "diversity in the faculties of" various people. "The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is" an "insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. [Even so, t]he protection of these faculties is the first object of government." The protection of the diversity of faculties of the people is highly relevant here.
Madison's words here are some of the most powerful and most important ever written about our Constitution: "The diversity in the faculties [ ] from which the rights of property originate" creates a diversity "of interests" and "[t]he protection of these faculties is the first object of government." Those are words worth highlighting for the SCOTUS majority re: their violation of (and lies about) our Constitution in Dobbs.
Enjoyed re-reading Madison in Federalist 10, which is so on point to the discussion. Thank you!
Thanks for helping your sorority sister.
I never miss a chance to say that my later success in life is due to my having had a safe and legal abortion at age 18.
These data confirm what I have always believed: Our society treats women as if they are a fungible commodity. Their primary use is to bear children. If they die, so what? Some other woman will step in to care for the children and bear more. So there’s no reason to maintain programs or laws that could make women’s lives safer or more productive. It’s as if the Republicans have joined the Taliban…
As the young people would say, NPC -- women are non-player characters in the ChristNazi male game plan.
Women are the majority but don't seem to have the muscle in voting.
For now.
they will go after women's voting right next - Charlie's wife is leading the attack
Was America Great before the woman's vote, the civil rights act, elected senators, social security, the income tax? I never understood what Great Again was striving for. And I bet most people are not sure either. I did come to understand that when a politician was anti-woke it meant that they were anti whatever you were anti. Easy to agree on antiwokeness when wokes are personal. Maybe "greatness" has a similar shade of nebulousness.
it means make america white again
And MALE. White male supremacy.
she has hers though doesn't she
I mean all the stuff she could ever want and no need to vote
🙄
There is no end to attempts on the rights of half of the world's population. We have been trafficked, raped, paid substandard wages, told what to wear, what not to wear, denied promotions, denied care for health concerns specific to females, treated shabbily. Did I leave anything out?
We'll probably get blamed for not dusting off the glass ceiling, too.
There's no end, and never has been, to what we endure and fight against.
Smile more?
The only lives the fascist party and its voters and fans are interested in saving is those of the unborn.
Once they are born, there is no interest at all, witness SNAP and Medicaid being cut off, health care unaffordable, guns being peddled to even the last idiot in the US, programs that actively speed up death in unwanted people of color and last, but not least, the death penalty fans.
Yes, they believe in life from conception to birth! After that, not so much!
Thank you for doing this reporting. I have followed ProPublica’s excellent coverage of this disaster, and the additions you provide are much needed
Very important to keep this kind of refresher info coming! We must not forget just because abortion rights don’t impact us personally. The medical desert impacts everyone! Every female baby born in The United States is ENTITLED to be free and equal.
Thanks Jennifer and Joyce for this excellent report. Thanks for covering all the bases for how this assinine decision affects healthcare outcomes. The Supreme Court is anti-democracy.
Each new Facist wave always goes after women.
When will it mattter that the majority of Americans want women to have a right to choose? How do we make it matter?
Women are always at the bottom because literally half of all men in the US think women aren't actually people. Yes, half will admit they think women are some kind of inferior creature. And unfortunately, a certain percentage of women agree: they also think women are subhumans or second class. The main religion in the US, Christianity, openly teaches that women are subhumans, which certainly adds to this problem. Education of very young children about equality is the only way to stop this.
"Christianity teaches" is quite different from what Jesus teaches. Mary, mother of Jesus; Martha; Mary, sister of Martha;
and Mary Magdeline were prominent disciples of Jesus. Many women were central to the ministry after the death of Jesus, including patrons. Finally, here is what Jesus said about abortion ... 🦗 🦗 🦗
Absolutely!
So agree with you.
Campaign for and vote for more candidates or pro women/pro choice.
I've done that since I started voting in 1992 and in every election since. Politicians need to care enough to risk their reelection to codify women's rights and they don't. Neither the women or the men. Roe was overturned and the first thing the majority did was codify gay marriage, and good for them, but why didn't they codify women's rights? And this was Nancy Pelosi!! Really disappointing.
Good point. And now we have all these women agreeing that their husbands should have the only vote in a family - the 19th amendment should be revoked.
Yes, it is perverse to watch women of all ages agree to give up their power. Perverse and disheartening. I really don't think enough women know what it means to give up voting power. Once women's votes are even more diluted, or worse revoked, women will become even more economically disadvantaged and under control of men and complicit women who feel women are second class citizens and not deserving of equal pay, jobs or economic independence. And worse this bleak Gileadean future is sold as a shiny new reclamation of faith wrapped up in s vicious, Christian Nationalist bow on top. Gross.
Back to the 1800's. That's why I'm an Atheist/Agnostic. Glad that I don't know such subservient women.
Totally agree!
I've made it matter every day of my life since 1980.
Convince more women that they should have that right (among other rights).
And yet, some female white “Christian” nationalists agree with their husbands that the 19th amendment should be revoked and only husbands should be allowed to vote with one vote per family.
I say they can simply not vote. Works for me - one vote per family for those who feel that way. Do the math!
Convince more men! Men are clearly driving the narrative, lift some of the weight!
Why would the minority (men) want to do anything to help their (potentially) majority oppressors (women). They got the vote and then 2 World Wars, huge budget deficits, and the women have been taking men's jobs? C'mon we even let a couple on the Supreme Court.
Your POV is unfortunate. I'm not taking the bait.
YEA!! fewer OBs!!! for a retired Nurse Practioner/Certified Nurse Midwife who was licensed in over 10 states and Guam practicing in rural/inner city hospitals, birth centers, home births maternity discare is TOXIC to women, babies, families. totally unacceptable to have over 25% c-section rate-just look at oregon's vital statistics. births and c-section rates. and oregon is one of the best states!! the patriarchy is alive and well in the MD and the OB world. i was once told by a hospital administrator in alabama, of all states!! BS=bullshit, MS=more shit, PHD=piled higher and deeper, MD? Mighty Deity. i could tell you many many horror stories from the maternity "wards" why is the usa so low in world stat comparison?
because we can't do math...
Wait. Weren't American women some of the best computers before we had the electronics to match and then beat them/ Women can do the maths.
yes...from the movie Hidden Figures....for which the crew cuts took credit
sorry, I meant americans in general can't do math
One thing that we can all do is NEVER, EVER use the phrase "abortion rights". This trivializes the issue and makes people think "baby killer" or some such thing. Say anything else: reproductive rights, women's rights, right to bodily autonomy, rights for women to receive medical treatment, rights for women to make their own medical decisions. Reframe it. Because it isn't just about abortion; the Forced Birthers also want to take away contraception, sex education, and the right of women to vote, followed by the right of women to work, go to school, decide what to wear, and possibly whether they can even leave their house. They call them the "Christian Taliban" for a reason.
Thank you for this report. I honestly despair for the plight of women in the United States and am frustrated by the lack of coverage in all forms of media. It's like we are still afraid to speak up for women's rights, afraid to alienate people by treating women as autonomous human beings. Until more people take the time to talk about women's rights, write about women's rights and take a stand to codify women's rights, nothing will change. And I am honestly disappointed that with the most powerful women in the Democratic Party, and powerful Democratic majorities in Congress in the last 20 plus years no one codified women's rights, and now look where we are. I guess it's never the right time for women? I can't express my disappointment enough.
Shouldn’t vasectomy patients and their physicians be subject to the same prohibitions as folks who need abortions? Does a vasectomy have any medical purposes comparable to those of pregnancy?
What about mandatory vasectomies for all men who do not commit to fathering more children? It would decrease the number of unplanned pregnancies which would decrease the number of abortions.
What about tight controls on Viagra and other ED drugs? That would similarly decrease the number of abortions. Perhaps a vasectomy would be a requirement for a prescription for such drugs.
What about strict limits on which men can father children? We could throttle the number of unplanned pregnancies and the overall birthrate.
The best way to decrease the number of abortions, for those that are opposed to abortion, is to decrease the number of pregnancies. Protestants have no religious reason to object to contraception. Sex education is another way to do that. Also, programs that would empower young women to make decisions about their own lives, would decrease the number of unplanned pregnancies, because the women would choose to be sexually active when they are ready, not when some man pressures them.
Sounds like a plan to me. How about requiring every father who doesnot take responsibility for their first offspring to have a vasectomy. That has all sorts of potential benefits.
I think the Viagra and vasectomy suggestions are good rhetorical devices to force the question of bodily autonomy.
Men will literally cross their legs when you say "vasectomy." I don't really understand it because it isn't like the urologist walks in with a machete and no anesthesia. There are benefits for men and their partners.
The Viagra suggestion is useful because it makes men afraid to argue with it, lest someone think less of them. Again, I don't understand it because it is nobody's business what goes on in your bedroom.
Either way, it forces the man to talk about bodily autonomy. Then he has to explain why it is different than abortion. He has to explain why a sperm is not living, but a fertilized egg is not living. That's a argument based on faith, because there is no argument based on biology.
Decreasing abortion by decreasing unplanned pregnancies is a good faith proposal that anyone who opposes abortion should agree with. (I know birth control is complicated for some Catholics, so I accept their religious beliefs.) It decreases the number of "lives lost" without controlling women. Some anti-abortion activists are willing to dialog about it, but many reveal that they actually want more women to give birth against their wills'. They lament a drop in pregnancies, which seems like a good thing because it decreases abortions.
Well said.
Lots of comments on here about repealing the 19th Amendment/taking away women's right to vote. Ladies, if that happens, then you should not have to pay taxes. After all, this country was founded on the principle of no taxation without representation, right?
(For the record, I think EVERYONE over the age of 18 should have the right to vote, not just white Christian men.)
Yes, medication abortion is a great thing, but it doesn't help women in these states who want to be pregnant. If a woman who wants to be pregnant suffers a miscarriage or any other obstetric problem, she is in serious trouble if she happens to live in a Forced Birth state. The treatments for miscarriage are all exactly the same as those used to perform an elective abortion (aka, banned), and if she has a medical issue that is normally treated by a swift abortion, she won't be able to get one. And the studies are rolling out and showing that women in these abortion-ban states are not receiving proper care during pregnancy and even during childbirth, which is causing vast amounts of completely preventable morbidity and mortality of women and infants. It's the complete opposite of being "pro life".