Dangerous pregnancy? Texas says 'Too bad.'

I followed a series of stories from Texas because I care about freedom and bodily autonomy, and I wondered whether Texas would be compassionate or act to form. 

It starts with a lawyer in the attorney general's office writing that Texas isn't to blame if women aren't getting life-saving abortions. Nooooo, it's those terrible cowardly doctors who refuse to risk their freedom and licenses to perform perfectly legal abortions. The lawyer, a woman, suggests that women should be looking at suing doctors, not the state. 

There's a tiny bit of superficial logic to this. Possibly the doctors are being cowards. Possibly the state wouldn't consider trying to prosecute them for necessary abortions. Texas hasn't jailed any doctors yet for providing emergency abortions. So it's is possible that doctors are just being too nervous. 

More likely, though, is that Texas AG office is lying, trying to throw the blame elsewhere, and providing a talking point to supporters of the strict law. A woman who is 20 weeks pregnant, whose baby has a severe and deadly chromosomal defect, filed suit to get permission for an abortion in Texas. She is already suffering serious side effects. A judge granted her permission for an abortion, with the state arguing against it. What! I thought they supported necessary abortions for the health and life of the mother. Oh, wait, that was just window dressing. The state government doesn't actually support necessary abortions. 

The state appealed, got a ruling to stay the decision. And the AG showed how much they support women in this situation by threatening hospitals and doctors and reminding them that of the penalties for breaking the Texas abortion law. 

So the woman decided she had to leave the state to get her necessary abortion. In the meantime, the Supreme Court of Texas doubled down on the lie that doctors have all the discretion they need. 

So there it is. Texas doesn't really care how dangerous your pregnancy is. Enforcing the laws on those horrid doctors, women, and anyone else is more important. 

Image: Trisomy 18 Foundation

Extras. There's pushback in many states against the stricter abortion laws. Conservatives have a set of tactics to stymie pro-choice referenda, etc. 

Update 3/25/24. Anti-choice doctors have challenged the legality of the abortion pill. It's not as though it hasn't been heavily used in the past 20+ years. Due to their ideals, they challenge it on false pretenses because it does work well. Here's scuttlebutt about their lawsuit. 

Update 4/26/24. A young writer for a conservative magazine isn't overly concerned about citizens' rights to travel--when it's travel for abortions. She's all for states being intrusive in those cases. Chain them up! Freedom isn't for pregnant women and girls!

Is Roe v. Wade about to be overturned?

Yes, I was woefully late posting this. But that makes it more historical, capturing some of the sentiments before the event. 

A draft decision overturning the Roe decision has been leaked---perhaps the first leak of a decision in the history of the Supreme Court. But the leak isn't my focus in the least. There's so much to consider that has much more impact on people's lives. 

If Roe is overturned, it will become much harder to get an abortion in over half the states in the US. And it will stay the same in a lot of states, like mine. 

However it's hard to tell how much impact this will actually have because getting an abortion is much easier than it was back 50 years ago. Now you can take a pill. That pill can be shipped to you or to a friend. You and a group of friends can stock up and resupply as convenient. There's also going to other states, but that's not as easy as taking a pill, so the pills will probably be used more than anything.

Will states try to prevent this? Maybe, probably, but how successful can they be? We have a huge illegal drug issue in the US, and states and federal government haven't put an end to that. This would involve legally available pills and people who want the government to stop dictating to women. So I think flaunting the laws will be widespread. A few people may be imprisoned, and that will seem like an injustice of the most arbitrary kind. And life will go on without a lot of difference except perhaps some people will be more careful about contraceptive use. 

Image: i stock photo

Extras. Dems have been raked over the coals for not passing a national law protecting abortion rights. But they never had the votes in the Senate since the bill certainly would have been filibustered. They had only 54 votes, with 7 Dem senators being pro-life at that time in 2009. 

Annotated copy of the leaked draft opinion. 

The talking points for the Republican senators: stress how compassionate GOPers are and how horrible extremists Dems are. 

Fascinating article about the abortion business in New York City in the 1800s. Abortion was illegal, sort of, so it was advertised as restoring menstrual regularity. 

Fall-out in Ohio. A 10-year-old girl was raped and impregnated. She had to go to Indiana to get the abortion. Big impact on the discussions in states. 

A gallery of day-by-day fetal development. 

Update 4/11/24. Long article about women taking abortion pills in states with abortion bans. They can often get the pills free, but they aren't getting a doctor's care, and that's a huge loss. Many are unsure what is normal and what are the danger signs that they should seek medical care. If they seek medical care, will they be prosecuted or targeted in some ways? There are some volunteer services of doctors on call who will answer questions, but it's not a substitute for physician care in person and in crisis. 

Very interesting links. Long but worth it.

 I've been negligent in keeping up with blogging. Mea culpa. But here's lots of good stuff.

Reports on the Trump campaign. Feeling confident in August. Trump's appeal to white working class remains strong. People who think Trump is nuts, including Hannity. Voting suppression shenanigans--just one of many tactics to reduce the turnout. Republicans getting more worried. Less cowardice towards Trump--a bit less. Unfocused campaign near the end--maybe the emphasis is simply on bluster. Details of targeting black voters in 2016 for discouragement.

In-depth reports about how Biden chose Kamala Harris. I'm very interested in decision-making processes. This reports a budding connection. I hope that's a good sign. 

Other tidbits about Biden. A long piece focusing on personality and character. Like many Dem campaigns, Biden is late with a strategy for Latino voters. The Biden campaign goes gross on drug test request. (Don't talk about urine PLEASE!!!!)

Heading toward fascism? A refugee from a fascist country warns the US that we are definitely headed in that direction. Not all hyperbole by any means. 

Real data on voter fraud. It's not clear that the methodology is strong, but (if so) this should be getting more attention. Actual numbers on dead people voting and double voting. Nothing on ballot harvesting which is the biggest form of fraud. 

Dangers in refusing abortions. A Michigan senator tells how his wife was refused an abortion for a failed pregnancy that put her health and life in danger. Rigidity is winning over realism and women's lives. 

Snapshot USA. Portland police allow left and right whackos to fight. Illogical complaint about NYC restrictions on restaurant. Consider necessity versus option. No rational person literally believes Tucker Carlson. That is the conclusion of a judge in dismissing a slander suit against him. 

Covid relief 2.0. Seems to be permanently stalled. This is another case of GOPers have no ability to handle difficult negotiations. 

Global warming factors. Broken down and explained very clearly. It would be much hotter by now if the sunspot activity had a normal cycle rather than a very low cycle. We got lucky, but humans are fucking our climate. 

Image: abcnews.go.com

The high stakes of culture Part 2

(Originally written back in January 2015, it's interesting to see where my thinking has changed. The writing remains rough, but clear enough.)

The general culture of the US is one input to the behavior of individuals, but local cultural norms are another, and probably stronger. I've written about middle-class culture, particularly the fear of losing all one's money and shifting to a day-by-day existence. I've also written about the clash between liberals' gun-less utopia and the gun owners sense of their rights and culture.

Other cultural quirks I've noticed: New York City has a sustained high rate of abortion--like many women there never seem to learn how to correctly use contraceptives. Middle-class girls are quite different--their rates of abortion have been dropping. Yeah-let's all learn about how to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

Inner city kids learn to disrespect authority: issue false denials, accuse people of racism, curse, lie. This is a generalization, as all observations of culture are. (TNC - Ta-nehisi Coates-- post on behavior/culture needed in poor area. Comments were very good but aren't available any more. One frequent commenter, Pete, a blue-collar white man from Baltimore, described a pro-education poor neighborhood.)

TNC makes the argument that the society has been exploiting blacks for the entire history--but I wonder whether he can count the past 40 years. (Yes, now in 2020 I agree with exploitation continued.) He doesn't say what society should do about this, but some commenters hint--schools as good as anywhere, possibly also true for housing, job opportunities etc. This is social engineering on a grand scale--just turn all neighborhoods into clones of middle-class neighborhoods. Not only prohibitively expensive, but also many groups haven't needed to so much external help to move into the middle class (like the immigrant groups). Some white groups have gotten mired in poverty too. Must they be engineered out poverty too? 

Here's how I feel about this: it's not a strong idea to spend so much money with little evidence investment will provide the outcome desired. This isn't the only instance I've felt this way (I feel the same way about treating cancer on my own dime.) I don't think changing schools and housing will help while the culture remains.

TNC almost follows the behavior of his youth, and calls headlines it the culture of poverty. He then gets angry when others use the term. How expectations are different and new rules learned. TNC on Cosby's cultural message. Racism creates pathology.

Big TNC article on reparations. To critique it, see what he doesn't focus on. Employment, the changes in the last 50 years, the generalization of who was hurt and who would have to have to acknowledge wrong-doing. Critique by another black columnist--this view isn't productive, so let's stick with what is more likely to be. Noah Millman thoughtful response. Conor's column with a block of good comments. Douthat writes about cultural and poverty. (Note--the talk is of a culture of poverty, but the bigger problem is all the local cultures of poverty. The particular problems grow locally with gradual diffusion, but I expect major local differences.)

Religious view. Rod Dreher lots of posts about loss of religion, loss of strictures, discipline, sense of duty. Fun post--worst cultural mistake. He's against nominalism and the emphasis on empiricism and observation. What's wrong with these (which have been so helpful in science)--denial or lack of evidence of the soul, God, etc. Science is a tough competitor.

Image: youtube.com

May links

Religious right takeover. After about 40 years of trying, the religious right is taking over and abolishing the right to a safe, legal abortion. Conservatives used to pay lip service to pro-life groups, and those groups got fed up and marshalled their strength, electing someone malleable like Trump and his openly pious VP, Mike Pence. Snippet: More rights for workers to opt out of tasks due to conscience and religious belief. Will patients not receive care because of it?

Abortion actions in states. Many states are changing their abortion laws. Some are pushing to overturn Roe v Wade, and others are updating to allow late term abortion for therapeutic reasons. Related: an argument that men cause all pregnancies. Fun to read, but does it hold together? And an article and interesting comment thread about stealthing, which is secretly removing a condom during sex.

Mueller as witness. A profile of what to expect, as though we couldn't predict it from what we know already. Sober, honest, rule-based, tough, consistent. <---- Well, that item is now defunct. Mueller has said that his report is his testimony, and he has nothing to add. And finally a cogent conservative view on why Mueller was wrong to hint so broadly that Trump obstructed justice. I've read so much junk from conservatives, it's a relief to find something intelligent.

The spies don't like it. Trump has appointed Bill Barr, the Attorney General, to decide what documents to declassify related to unfair investigations into the Trump campaign. I don't trust Barr to be impartial or the intellligence servicess to be candid, but the truth almost always comes out.

Shutting down free press in Europe. Scary. Not by killing journalists, but by buying up the media outlets.

Maneuvering over impeachment. Impeachment will help Trump, so he's now trying to goad the Dems into it. I'll have to check what GOP mouthpieces are saying. Maybe their 'coup' rhetoric will be replaced with claims that the Dems are impeaching Trump, even when they aren't. It's obviously theater and moot because the Senate won't convict. In related news, Trump had a temper tantrum, blew up a negotiations session that was supposed to work toward an infrastructure bill, and then ranted in the Rose Garden. But it was all planned, with the podium and signs already set up.

My obsession with fake claims of voting fraud. Another entry in this category. Texas tries to remove non-citizens and screws up. Let me guess--are minorities the main target again?

Conservative fake news industry. For outright lies, conservative media wins hands down. Someone faked a video of Pelosi slurring her words, and the rubes ate it up. In related news, the Washington Examiner had a headline about Buzzfeed having to correct a tweet. It was a small correction, hardly worth a newstory or headline. I wonder when the Examiner will correct its own false stories, like the one I write about here.

Developing nations. An overview of nations with different levels of development and different obstacles. A good encapsulation, with helpful examples.

Is India headed to another civil war? Trouble is simmering, and might explode.

Important link on server forensics. Damn those stupid talking points. The DNC didn't need to turn over servers to the FBI according to an actual computer expert. And another article about the forensics of the computer hacking investigation, though ultimately the info comes from the same source.

Still available by mail, no matter what state

Image: thecut.com

Supreme Court stubs out abortion ban via regulation

When you can't get what you want by fair play, we can always resort to other methods. So it was with the State of Texas. The majority of legislators want to ban abortion, but certain Supreme Court decisions stand in their way.

Enter a different idea: cloak your ban in the guise of health-based regulations. Since we're already drowning in regulations, it's a common method of changing practice, so why not? It's not that hard to lie about the real reasons for the regulation, like pretending that abortion is more dangerous than childbirth and causes more death than the low death toll from colonoscopies.

So Texas passed its regulations (after an unsuccessful filibuster by Wendy Davis). Lots of abortion clinics closed down, but at least one sued. The case went up to the Supreme Court, where Anthony Kennedy, typically conservative justice, called bullshit on the regulations. Well, they were bullshit, so I'm glad that he didn't play along. Kennedy has called bullshit on other issues too, including the idea that same sex marriage is dangerous to the institution of marriage and family.

Three cheers for Justice Kennedy!

How far you have to travel in Texas

Image: vocativ.com

Blaming the talkers, not the shooters

Is Harry Reid right when he blames the murders and shooting at the Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood on Republican politicians?

There are some good arguments for leveling some of the blame on them. Many of them aren't moderate in their statements, but instead ramp up the anger at those who support and provide abortions to the women who want them. They don't take the extra few seconds to remind people to try to stop abortion only through rational, respectful discussion. The GOPers as a whole have quite a history of lying about abortion, like 90% of what Planned Parenthood does is abortion. Shouldn't the GOP be held responsible when lies like this influence someone to kill? When I put it like this, yes, it seems they should be partially blamed.

But then I tried a thought experiment--do I feel the same about protest movements that I have more sympathy for? How much do I blame the Black Lives Matter movement for execution-type shootings of police? The answer to that one is easy--I don't blame Black Lives Matter, or the vast majority of their advocates and supporters. A few protesters have encouraged the shooting of police, but very few. And even then, they weren't directly involved in shootings, so they aren't guilty of incitement or conspiracy. I'm not even sure there is a crime for what they did, if all they did is yell.

So, am I going to have a different standard for conservatives and their causes than for liberals and their causes? It might be tempting, but I'm not. People are morally responsible to the lies they tell, or for the hate speech they mutter or shout, but they're not responsible when someone else pulls the trigger--unless they cross the gray line between advocating a position and advocating specific violence.

Am I right about this position? I'm not totally sure. However, I don't want to choose what is expedient, but what is fair.

Is it a lie? Is it incitement?

Image: lifenews. com

Extra. Ed Kilgore, a mildly progressive blogger whom I read often, makes a good argument for assigning more blame. But I'm not convinced, because sometimes the shoe is on the other foot.

According to Rush: Planned Parenthood

After my loads of research on Rush Limbaugh, I have several fascinating stories still to share. This is the first of the addendums.

A woman caller had this question: "Why is Planned Parenthood supporting the Plan B pill in the first place? Won't it cut down on abortions?"

Now, this is interesting. The Limbaugh line on Planned Parenthood (PP) is that their one interest is abortions. Yet this listener noticed an odd dissonance. If PP is all about abortion, why would they support contraceptives? After all, if contraception, such as the morning-after pill, is effective, you don't need abortion, so there are fewer abortions, and that is counter PP's mission.

This listener doesn't see that Limbaugh has been feeding her and all listeners a crappy half-truth. That possibility hasn't entered her mind, but she does pick up on this inconsistency, so she calls Limbaugh (the educator, the answer-man, the voice of conservatives) for an explanation. Limbaugh asks her to take her best guess for the reason, but she muffs it. So he steps in and builds the story:

CALLER: I had two questions for you. Number one: Why is Planned Parenthood supporting the Plan B pill in the first place? Won't it cut down on abortions?

RUSH: Well, great question. You want to try taking a stab at answering it yourself? 

CALLER: ...They're mad at the Obama administration for doing away with it, so they're playing it both ways. 

RUSH: Well, that could be. But what does Planned Parenthood stand for?

CALLER: Abortion.

RUSH: Women aborting babies, however they do it. However they do it. Other than the back alley, however they do it. So the thing is if the morning-after birth control pill at age 15 conditions women, "This is no big deal!" Planned Parenthood would have to support it. Look, liberals are liberals first. Abortion is the sacrament. If you look at liberalism as a religion, abortion is the sacrament. So whatever moves the agenda forward is okay, and this moves the agenda forward.

The agenda forward is women having abortions, whenever, however... It is true that the Plan B morning-after pill will impact the Planned Parenthood bottom line. So it just means that they'll go into the manufacturing business, or they'll invest (chuckling) in pharmaceuticals. I don't know. It's a great question, but the answer is: "Hey, what's the objective? Abortions!"

So there is the dissonance, but Limbaugh papers over it with the affirmation dogma that PP is all about abortions. In the real world of honest discussion, someone would explain that PP's goal is not just to perform abortions, but to give people, mostly women, the tools to manage when to have children. When that's the goal, there is no disconnect between providing contraception and providing abortion.

However, in Limbaugh's world, and according to many conservatives, abortion is the only reason for PP, so there is this inconvenient fact that PP also supports contraception like Plan B. Limbaugh can't explain it on his own terms, so he gracefully punts. I don't know if his audience notices or not. The caller doesn't get another word, so we don't know if she found the answer convincing or not.

Limbaugh goes on to criticize PP for falsely hiding its mission (abortion per Limbaugh) with the name 'Planned Parenthood:'

RUSH: Now, I know. I know there are people in this audience who cannot possibly think I really mean that. Folks, not only do I really mean it, it's true. Don't blame me if you can't get your arms around that. There are over a million abortions a year. Planned Parenthood supports them and performs them. It's not even controversial to say that what Planned Parenthood is about is abortions and as many as possible...

When I first heard of Planned Parenthood, to show you how the left uses the language, I thought it was exactly what it says: Planning parenthood. I was very young. I was in my teens, early twenties. I thought you went to Planned Parenthood and they would help you plan your family, help you deal with the economics of it and raise a family...

That's not at all what they do. They want people to think that. So when somebody like me comes along and points out what they really do, people say, "No, no, no! That can't possibly be!" Some people don't even want to conceive that that's what they do, but it is. This is the cross that I bear: Bringing the truth to people that they may not want to hear. Therefore it makes me "divisive." -- emphasis added

Ah, Rush, you were so naive when you were young. You imagined that Planned Parenthood  helped you get a job and manage your money, maybe get an affordable apartment or house for your family. But delaying having children wasn't part of your vision for how to plan your family. To think, PP manipulated language to make you think they are a helping organization. And all the time, they're only about abortions. Thank God for Rush, and his willingness to bear the cross and tell the truth. I hope he can continue with his sacrifice and his truth-telling mission... all the way to the bank, since he isn't going to earn any honesty awards.

Inconceivable--One of 11 categories of PP services

Image:  plannedparenthood.com

Partial research into late-term abortion

WARNING: Please skip this if you're tired of my posts on abortion. I certainly understand if you are. However, due to questions, and awareness, raised by the Gosnell trial, I decided to research late term abortion.

As a practical matter, abortions become more difficult and more bloody as the fetus gets larger. A dilation and curettage (D+C) is possible for second-trimester abortions. Abortions after approximately 24 weeks required day-long dilation. Then delivery/termination is performed on the second day.

I started to understand the statements of Gosnell's workers about "it raining fetuses" after studying late term abortion. The process of dilating the cervix enough to remove a larger fetus is painful and lengthy, and can itself cause the woman to go into premature labor and delivery. This is actually safer because the fetus is aborted whole, and no parts can accidentally be left behind to cause medical problems like infection.

If the fetus is not expelled in premature labor, the abortion doctor has to try to remove it, sometimes cutting it apart. The procedure to cut apart the fetus can cause injury to the mother, such as perforated uterus or perforated bowel. It isn't surprising that instruments that can dismember a fetus can also lacerate the internal organs of the mother.

In writing this post, I've tried to provide only facts without interpretation or taking sides. I believe that it's best to be informed and to have a scientific understanding of the issues. Science will not dictate decisions, but it provides a firm basis for your own decision making.

More resources (in no particular order):

• Video of a real second-trimester abortion (graphic).
• Undercover video of an informational session for a woman considering a fairly late abortion. I judge based on my general healthcare background that the information is accurate.
• Discussion of late-term abortion with a few graphic line drawings. 
• Clearinghouse of ads for late-term abortion services.
• Fetal growth chart.
• Growth chart using comparison to everyday objects.
• If I wanted to find more statistics and research, I would go to the NIH site here.
• A doctor talks about the reasons for and against abortion.

I hope this is the last post I write about abortion. I understand and largely respect the arguments on both sides, and I struggle with my own opinions of this life-and-death issue. I hope other people feel the same way.

Short: Abortion reading

Not everyone's favorite topic, but worthwhile if you have the interest:

• Is Late Term Abortion Ever Necessary? This author, a pro-life GYN, argues that it never is. She prefers that a mother carrying fetus with severe problems go to full-term. The doctor is so opposed to abortion that she doesn't defer the decision to the mother. I do because I respect the opinions and experience of the mother, who will deal with the weeks of heartbreak and anxiety during the wait and care for the disabled baby once it's born. No dice, Doc. You didn't convince me.
• The story of a woman who had one of those late term abortions, the reason she died, and how her story is twisted for propaganda.

Abortion doctor blame game

I remember well when the grisly story of the Philadelphia abortion clinic of Dr. Kermit Gosnell broke in 2011. My main source for news, NPR, didn't sugarcoat the story of the doctor who performed late-stage abortions, killing the babies who were born alive. His clientele was largely poor blacks and immigrant women. His facilities were horribly unhygienic. Unsurprisingly, no one rose to his defense.

Fast-forward to now (April 2013). A cause celebre among the conservative media is that the MSM is covering up this story. Um, how?

Well, don't you know that his trial is going on right now and the MSM isn't covering it? No, I didn't know that. I know that the Jody Arias trial is going on. She used to be a stunning blonde, but now she has dark straight hair, glasses, a mousy look, a terrible memory, and multiple versions of how her lover ended up dead. That's what I know about.

I suppose this shows that the MSM could transfer a fair amount of resources to covering other more important issues, such as Dr. Gosnell's trial, but that doesn't make it a cover-up.

The accusation of cover-up started with one reporter: Kirsten Powers of Fox News writing in USA Today on April 11. Then the chorus from like-minded conservative media outlets snowballed. What they don't mention is that the conservative media was hardly reporting on the trial either. HotAir started its trial coverage on April 9, not when the trial started in March. Breitbart's coverage is somewhat better, with spotty coverage in March, but the real explosion beginning on April 12.

It looks to me like no media outlets were covering the trial very well until Kirsten Powers cided the MSM, and just the MSM. No bias there.

She definitely had a good point. The trial deserves a lot of coverage, and it's now guaranteed to get it.

With the increased coverage comes an orgy of recriminations about who is responsible. Those being blamed include:

• Dr. Gosnell
• The staff at the clinic
• The radical pro-abortionists
• The Democratic elite
• The Pennsylvania Health Department
• The pro-abortion establishment leaning on the PA Health Department not to do inspections
• The PA governors who were afraid of the pro-abortion establishment, or maybe swing voter backlash
• The pro-life activists who demonstrated outside Gosnell's clinic but completely ineffective in finding out the women's stories or in shutting the clinic down
• The media for not covering stories that hurt the pro-abortion side
• The Hyde amendment for not providing free, early abortions for poor women

Yeah, right. It looks like some people have a few axes to grind, and the occasion of this trial is a good time to do it. I'll ignore the point scoring, but share a few interesting details.

The report from the grand jury that indicted Gosnell is very readable and fascinating. A few observations:

• Gosnell's staff contained mostly poor, under-educated local women, but there were also a few opportunists who should have known better. Among the staff was a 15-year-old high school girl. Within a few months, she was in charge of drug administration on many shifts.
• Gosnell worked one day a week at another abortion clinic. Also, one of his staffers was recommended by a Louisiana clinic owner. This makes me suspect there are other clinics out there that are in the same class as Gosnell's clinic.
• However, not all clinics are like this. Another former worker, who had reported Gosnell's clinic to health authorities, said she had worked at seven different abortion clinics and "she has never experienced an illegally run, unsanitary, and unethical facility such as the Women’s Medical Society operated by Dr. Gosnell" (p. 52). 

That is the only good news from this sordid story.

Image: bringingupbaby.com

Postscript. This isn't anywhere near full coverage of the complex topic of abortion. If there's a lot of interest, I'll set up some open threads.

Unsurprising headlines: McCaskill vs. Akin

From a Kansas City newspaper:

McCaskill surges; Akin abortion comments draw fire

Somewhere I read that Akin is a big target in this election. With his crazy-ass comment about "legitimate rape" never resulting in pregnancy, he created a corps of sworn opponents who will be pouring through his statements as far back as they can.

So far today, they've unearthed his comments about abortion doctors giving fake abortions to non-pregnant women. Oh, and abortionists are also domestic terrorists.

These fervent anti-abortion folks need to talk to some real people who've had abortions. Right now they're living in a fantasy land on the topic of abortion. They need a dose of reality. Reality is the antidote to most kinds of delusional thinking, and it's equally effective no matter which way the skew occurs.

Short: CYA by a pro-life group

While I was trawling the net for Todd Akin supporters, I found this mealy-mouthed document from the National Right to Life Committee. It chastises the media for ... (I'll just quote):

The mainstream news media is again busy ginning up stories exploring the outer parameters of the abortion-related policy positions of pro-life Republican candidates... -- while demonstrating a near-total disinterest in putting the spotlight on the outer parameters of the "abortion rights" positions embraced by President Obama, even on matters under current legislative consideration.

So, reporters, or voters, shouldn't be asking pro-life candidates about their positions because there isn't any legislation pending. I don't know if that's even true--that there's no pro-life legislation being considered in Congress right now. (Well, surprise, surprise. Their Legislation page lists a couple dozen bills.) I don't accept that limitation anyway because I want to hear what these candidates hope to do.

Instead, the press should focus on Obama, who might support sex-selective abortion or abortion up to the moment of birth. Yeah, this is a real concern. Somehow I don't think so. He certainly wasn't advocating these actions in the speeches he's been giving.

Extras. The abortion timeline at the NRLC website begins in 1959. That is part of the problem. Romney rules out any questions about abortion.

Last outpost of crazy: Akin supporters

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Not all gaffes are equal

It was a tough day for Republicans. On Sunday, the GOP candidate for Senate from Missouri made a big-ass mistake. He said that he doesn't believe that women can get pregnant from rape due to some bodily defense unknown to people who actually study human biology. Therefore, any woman claiming she got pregnant from a rape is probably a liar, and doesn't deserve to have a safe, legal abortion. Besides, even if she was telling the truth, her baby is innocent and deserves to live... never mind how traumatic the pregnancy might be... and even if the woman is a 12-year-old girl.

Some Republicans are pissed that this gaffe may cost them the Senate seat, and they're wailing about how unfair it is that gaffes stick to them but not to Dems.

Clearly, I'm not too sympathetic. To some people, this is just a little 'oopsy' like "57 states" or "put y'all back in chains" or "I like firing people."

This is different. It's not like saying the wrong word or using a questionable metaphor, or forgetting to fill a sentence with enough clauses so the words can't be taken out of context. This guy meant what he said. This has been his belief and reflects a policy objective that he would legislate if he could.

It would be scary if he could actually follow through, which he can't. What IS scary is that someone this dogmatic about abortion, reproduction, sex, and rape could be elected to the Senate. In 2010, the idiocies known as Christine O'Donnell and Sharron Angle were defeated, not by GOP primary voters, but by general election voters. We'll have to count on general election voters again. Let us pray, yet again, to be saved from the foolishness of some of our fellow citizens.

  Christians wooing women voters?

Image: mediaite.com

Also interesting. Bernstein on what the party can do.

Sanctions hurt the poor here

Not in Iran, Iraq, Syria, or Libya...

In Texas. The Texas legislature wanted to put sanctions on Planned Parenthood, so they eliminated funding and took the double hit from the loss of federal grants for family planning too. Clinical sites are closing and fees are being instituted or raised.

Some poor women may shift some of their small but existent disposable cash to pay for contraception. But for others, having to travel further and raise the extra $60  for the 3- or 6-month supply of pills will prove impossible, and nature will take its course. By this time next year, Texas may or may not see the results of this policy in birth rates, maternity hospital fees, child health program sign-ups, and adoptions.

We don't know the outcome yet. But it didn't have to come to this. In the fight over Planned Parenthood, someone could have blinked. Texas could have backed down, or Planned Parenthood could have separated into two organization: one that handles abortions and another that handles everything else.

If PP had done that, it would have been a capitulation to anti-choice forces and an abandonment of part of its mission. Still, I hope they considered it. If both types of services remain available through separate, that's not a huge sacrifice to make. Instead, both Texas and PP decided to sacrifice free or subsidized care for poor women.

Well, it's probably wrong to say Texas or PP sacrificed. The government of Texas (elected officials and public employees) and PP (the governing board and employees), and the strident pro-lifers behind the "kill PP" movement, are most likely still covered for the contraceptives they need and want. The real sacrifice is borne by those poor women who are pushed back into the bygone days of no contraceptives with all those stresses and uncertainties. We, the decision makers, are safe.

How far is the clinic?

Sources: NYT, Reuters, local Amarillo station

Update 3/16/12. Texas is suing the federal government over the loss of federal funding for its programs. Texas paper, Baltimore paper.

Update 4/15/12. More details on Planned Parenthood closings in Texas.

Contraception: Good works, bad people

Another rumination on pro-choice issues: Planned Parenthood has been besieged by conservatives all last year, but this might be a turn-around year for them. Susan J. Komen foundation announced that it was going to cut off grants to PP. Before Komen backtracked completely, it announced that it would still fund four locations because they were the only facilities in their areas for low-income women to receive breast cancer screenings.

This confirmed what I suspected: healthcare for the poor is spotty; PP is a major player for poor women; in some poor areas, PP is the only provider.

I wonder how many of the people who are working strenuously to defund (or preferably permanently close) PP have considered how poor women will get the healthcare that PP has provided. Are unsullied providers (with no connection to abortion) ready to step into breaches that would open if PP were closed or cut off from federal and state funding? The big question is: Can you actually separate contraceptive care from abortion?

I did a quick web search and found many independent women's health service providers. Roughly half stated that they provide abortion services, so scratch those. Many of the rest do referrals. Only one stated that it didn't provide abortion services. So it may be hard to find providers who are squeaky clean--no connection to abortion.

It's no surprise if it's hard to separate contraception services and abortion. Many people who use contraception want some sort of backup if the contraception fails. The failure rates aren't insignificant; they range from less than 1% to 20% depending on the contraceptive method. The backup is often abortion rather than continuing the unintended pregnancy. The provider who helped with the contraception will often want to help the woman with the unintended pregnancy, which means providing an abortion, referring her for an abortion, providing prenatal care, or making a referral for prenatal care. Few providers of contraception will want to throw up their hands and not help a woman whose contraception has failed.

So, the big answer: I don't think you can operationally separate contraception providers from abortion providers. People interested in providing contraceptive services don't usually stop there.

And what if they fail?

"I’m amazed, almost daily, at the fervor and zeal for which many conservatives, independents, and liberals espouse, nay advocate, for the murder of human beings to allow for the convenience of a mere vessel." --Wall Street Journal comment


More answers to the big question.
Indiana has trouble separating the services.
Washington Times article regurgitates pro-choice research.

Another way to be pro-life

Readers will have gathered that on the question of abortion, I strongly support its availability as a safe and legal option. But this isn't because I think an unborn baby is nothing of consequence, just an inconvenient lump of tissue.

That argument is mostly a straw man used by people who channel their hate through the abortion argument. I was once that lump of tissue, and everyone I've ever loved was once that lump of tissue. I think only a few people see a fetus or embryo as just a lump of tissue.

To most of us, life is sacred, but life also has limits. We are born, we live for an uncertain amount of time, and we die. Some people are never born at all, and some live such a short life that they never develop a sense of life at all. Some people, who could have lives, are never even conceived because sperm didn't meet egg.

That lack of certainty in life is the main reason I don't think abortion is murder. We don't know if that fertilized egg is viable or a scrambled mess. Sometimes it IS a scrambled mess that will never develop into a living, breathing child. Pregnancy is filled with that kind of uncertainty. It isn't a sure thing.

So what do you do if you never intended to conceive this baby--sperm wasn't supposed to meet egg. You can hope for a miscarriage, which is exactly the opposite of what a happily pregnant woman hopes. You can put your future in the hands of fate. Or you can do what many women do, and end the pregnancy that was never supposed to happen.

Some women wouldn't willingly have an abortion because the unborn baby feels like a living child to them, and an abortion would feel like murder. But for others, this small egg, zygote, embryo, or fetus doesn't feel alive, so the overriding concern is that she couldn't care for a child and never intended to get pregnant. For still other women, they are torn and under immense pressure, especially if they depend on someone else, or their own earnings, for a place to live.

With all these considerations, I wonder how anyone else can think they should make the decision, that their judgment should have priority over the pregnant girl or woman. I know pro-life people who don't want to make that decision for anyone else. They can offer help and advice, but the decision is best  left in the hands of the person closest to the unborn baby, and that's always the pregnant woman.

6 week embryo. Size 1/4 inch (6mm), 0.25 oz. (1g).

Extras: Stories of non-regret. You can easily find stories of regret too, but I think it's important to counter the "you'll hate yourself" propaganda. Gallup poll.

Biblical acknowledgment that an unborn baby is not the same as a living person.

********************************************************************


Originally, I was going to write about an acquaintance (Ann) who counsels pregnant girls/women as part of a pro-life organization. I admire the time she takes with the women, and the help she arranges if they decide to have the baby.

She doesn't want abortion to be a political war. It's in the person's conscience and soul where the dilemma plays out, not in a street or courthouse protest. So she listens to the girl: her fears, her hopes, the pressure from her family and/or boyfriend. She'll talk about the life and death of the baby, but not murder. She doesn't tell a girl that she's going to hell, or what God's judgment will be, because she believes that she can't know God's judgment.

I asked her what happens if the girl decides to have an abortion. "She stops calling us," Ann said. It feels like a failure to her, but that happens when you try something so important and so difficult.

If both sides could refrain from scorched-earth campaigns, both sides could live, work, encourage, and help in the same town and country. She's pro-life and I'm pro-choice, but we respect and care about each other. It can be this way.

The dark side of the pro-life argument

There was a time before Roe v. Wade when we lived in a land that enforced the law that if you got pregnant, you gave birth to the child. Most of us, including me, don't know what that time was like. Here is a reminder (from the comments on a Salon article):

*******************************************************************

My mother graduated from nursing school in the late 50s. While she was training in the emergency room, she befriended a young OB/Gyn and made an agreement that extended to a couple of other nurses. Whenever a young woman came in having had a botched abortion, the nurse would get in contact with that particular doctor no matter where he was or what he was doing, and he would take care of them.

Why was this necessary? Well, none of the other doctors would treat these girls. NONE of them. My mother tells horror stories of little girls as young as 13 or 14 being abandoned in hospital hallways until after they were dead. It was an unspoken rule that the doctor was not to show up until they were cold.

The hardest for her is the case of a little girl who tried to give herself an abortion with a knitting needle. She wasn't even a teenager yet. When her mother came into her bedroom, the child was almost unconscious and the bed was soaked with blood. The mother called her preacher and they prayed over this dying child until morning.

When they finally got the kid in the emergency room, she was given some blood, but no other treatment. There was nothing that could have been done to save her. It was far too late, there was already a massive infection in place and she was too damaged to survive any surgery.

The girl was in and out of consciousness for hours, crying and terrified and knowing that she would die. Her family left her there. My mother was the one that sat with her and held her hand while she died. That kid was 11. My mother was 20 (still a kid herself). This didn't change for another ten years or so. That's a lot of dead women.

My mother (in her 70s now) and her entire graduating class are some of the most adamantly pro-choice women I've ever met.

******************************************************************

These are the kinds of stories that the justices of the Supreme Court weighed when they made their 7-2 decision supporting the right to abortion. Even strong Catholics like Caitlin Flanagan are swayed by the truth of what it was like before abortion was legal and safe.

If you're against safe-and-legal abortion, you need to read these links. Read about the blood and the dying girls, about the doctors and nurses and families who treated them with disgust. You need to be fully informed because you are dealing with life and death, just as a woman considering an abortion (also a life-and-death decision) should be fully and truthfully informed. You also need to know that some medical personnel still treat women this way.

Don't doubt the truth of these stories. With the efficacy of our modern medicine, we forget an important medical fact--women are prone to large blood loss in childbirth or miscarriage.

"A river of blood runs through The Choices We Made, and it runs throughout the history of womankind. ...[A]ll the women and men who made possible a context in which an abortion could be performed legally, safely, and even humanely—together they say: Enough."
- Caitlin Flanagan

Update 6/14/19. As many states put severe restrictions on abortion and hope the Supreme Court will void Roe. v. Wade, the Washington Post published some old articles about abortion prior to the ruling. 

The dirty word in healthcare-choice

One issue that severely hampers honest debate about healthcare is acknowledgment of the tough choices to be made. To some people, choice is a loaded word because of its association with abortion. It's a word to be avoided at all costs, and sometimes it even seems that the concept is not acceptable.

For example, the controversy over Terri Schiavo's feeding tube seemed like a stand-in for something else. Most right-to-die cases don't get national attention anymore since 1990. It's normally considered a private family matter, with an established line of rightful decision-makers in case there's disagreement among the family.

No other recent case got nearly the nationwide attention that the Terri Schiavo case did. The case was superficially about a husband/guardian's fight to have his wife's wishes respected and have her feeding tube removed. But it also concerned the choice to let someone die. To pro-life/anti-abortion forces, this is not a permissible choice. So this case was a surrogate for abortion, and many of the usual pro-life forces were heavily involved (Randall Terry, the Catholic Church, the Pope, evangelical churches, and pro-life politicians in Florida and Washington DC).

 Feeding Tube

This allergy to medical choice cropped up again over the mandate in the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) that doctors should be paid to have a discussion of end-of-life decisions with patients age 50 and over. Sarah Palin famously called these "death panels," implying that it wasn't a voluntary discussion, but a coercive decision being made by cold, calculating bureaucrats. Well, there never are any half measures by Sarah Palin.

I wonder whether conservatives truly feared that there would be such death panels, which is a bit ludicrous in a country where comatose patients are kept alive for many years. I think the real fear is the legitimacy given to choice if the government conferred payment on such end-of-life care discussions. If we can choose not to do everything always to stay alive, maybe it's because we know life isn't to be maintained at all costs, and that other considerations matter. If other considerations matter, that opens the door to choice when dealing with an unwanted pregnancy. To pro-lifers, abortion is an absolute wrong, so its distant cousins-- pulling the plug, Do-Not-Resuscitate orders, even hospice--are suspect as being steps onto the slippery slope to the total sin of abortion.

Not a dirty word everywhere