Here is the letter I just wrote to my so-called Representative Pete Stauber, after receiving his latest newsletter. Your readers are welcome to borrow the language when they write to their anti-choice politicians.
Dear Rep Stauber,
I was sickened by your celebration of the overturning of Roe v Wade by the extremist majority in the Supreme Court. Two justices lied in their confirmation hearings when they indicated that Roe was ’settled law’ and they did not intend to overturn it. Poll after poll shows that most Americans did NOT want Roe to be overturned, no matter what their personal preferences. The illegitimate SCOTUS is happy to overturn state laws regulating guns but give states total say about whether girls and women have the right to reproductive health care. Clarence Thomas, who also lied in his confirmation hearings, has indicated that birth control and marriage equality are next. These decisions fly in the face ‘majority rule,’ a bedrock of our faltering democracy.
You are in a very privileged position to be able to afford to have five children and have good health care coverage provided by US tax payers. Most people seeking abortions in the US today are low-income mothers. This decision is a blatant attack especially on low-income girls and women around the country. You are forcing incredible pain and hardship on the most vulnerable people, many of whom don’t have access to the health care they need to prevent unwanted pregnancies, thanks to Republican attacks on Planned Parenthood and Medicaid expansion. You are putting doctors at risk of imprisonment for providing essential health care.
If you think all life has value, then why do you and your fellow Republicans consistently cut aid to low income families? You force girls and women to bear children they do not want and cannot afford, then make it even harder for them to bear and raise these children. Adoption is NOT the answer for most of them. Even intended pregnancies take a toll on our health and our bodies.
Your version of the ’sanctity of life’ clearly does not apply to living, breathing, conscious people. You well know that the vast majority of abortions take place within the first three months of pregnancy, long before fetal viability and consciousness. The tiny minority of abortions taking place later involve very hard decisions that should be made by women and their doctors, not distant elites in gerrymandered districts in their comfortable offices, pretending to care. The US will soon have stories like those that have emerged recently in anti-choice Poland, such as the death of a healthy mother of four who died this year of septic shock after doctors refused to terminate her failing pregnancy with twins. The first fetus died in the womb on December 23, but doctors refused to remove it, due to abortion laws, and her health deteriorated. The hospital waited until the heartbeat of the second twin stopped a week later, and waited a further two days before terminating the pregnancy on December 31. The woman, Agneiszka, died on January 25. Don’t forget her name, or the names of Americans that will soon follow, thanks to a minority of Republican extremists like you. Already, American women in some states are being prosecuted after having miscarriages. Young teens are exhausting family savings by having to travel hundreds of miles and spend thousands of dollars for a safe abortion.
Shame on you. Your hypocrisy and cruelty will not be forgotten this November. You are ignoring what most Minnesotans, and most Americans, want: for abortion to be safe, legal and rare.
Thank you for sharing this articulate and absolutely on-point letter and giving permission for us to use it. I’m particularly appreciative as I personally seem paralyzed and unable to put my thoughts to paper right now. The only thought I seem to have is that I believe all federal judges can be impeached, and this seems an appropriate time to look at the viability of such action against at least 3 and maybe 4 of the current so-called justices who clearly lied during their confirmation hearings. Hoping some familiar with those laws will weigh in on that possibility. Thank you, Laura.
If you haven't seen it, you may be interested in what Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said on "Meet The Press" today. After Chuck Todd referenced the statements by Senators Manchin and Collins about being misled about Roe by Kavanaugh and Gorsuch, AOC said she believes lying under oath is an impeachable offense.
She said "If we allow Supreme Court nominees to lie under oath and secure lifetime appointments to the highest court of the land and then issue, without basis--if you read these opinions--issue without basis, rulings that deeply undermine the human and civil rights of the majority of Americans, we must see that through. There must be consequences for such a deeply destabilizing action and hostile takeover of our democratic institutions. . . . And what makes it particularly dangerous is that it sends a blaring signal to all future nominees that they can now lie to duly elected members of the United States Senate in order to secure Supreme Court confirmations and seats on the Supreme Court."
You're welcome. I agree. We need to investigate their impeachment. We have seen so much blatant lying by Republicans clawing for power in the past 6 years that we have to put those lies front and center--be they by a sociopathic president or fundamentalist Christian Supreme Court justices, all of them flaunting a total lack of respect for the rule of law--if we want to try and save our democracy.
"You are in a very privileged position to be able to afford to have five children and have good health care coverage" .... this is so true -- it makes me so angry to see the smug Amy Barrett and of course we had republican governors like the wealthy Romney.... Yes, the doctors have lost their professional autonomy; they have studied for generations the ectopic pregnant, the pre-eclampsia, the surgical necessities of a birth if the fetus has already deceased in the womb... but they will have to be cautious in their decisions and advice for fear of the ciminalization of their work and their profession.... So the doctors will hand the mom with an ectopic pregnancy a referral to the psychiatrist as happened to my friend in the 1970s.
Superb! You said it all. If there was any way to dismiss those three “Justices” ( what irony) from the Court this year, I’m sure it would be done. Unfortunately, we have some of our best minds criminally dealing with the fools that put them there! Mitch Mc Connell always seems to escape unscathed from all he destroys. That level of manipulation has a special place in Hell.
Thank you thank you for this comprehensive response. I live in Ohio and I am going to take your letter and with appropriate modification, send it to all our GOP representatives and Senator. Will it do any good? I don't know. But I assure you that in November I and my family and all my friends who want to stay my friends will do all we can do vote the bums out. If we don't American democracy dies.
I live in Ohio too, and I am already livid about the corrupt Republican regime that ignored four rulings by the Ohio Supreme Court on the unconstitutionality of their gerrymandered maps. They blatantly refused to consider maps that met the criteria for bipartisan consensus and proportionate representation. Their only concern is to maintain a power imbalance that allows them to pass the most extreme legislation, regardless of what the people want. I would like to send this letter to my representatives.
Really well written. It will be interesting to see what, if any, response you get from the recipient. I've sent this off to my Rep, Ann Wagner and the junior Senator from MO. I'll pass along any substantive response I get from either.
Folks who raise dairy cows or beef cattle would not leave a dead or dying calf inside a mother. But that is exactly what these stupid, draconian laws do. They treat women with less concern than is shown for farm animals. Think on that as you remember Agneiska leaving four children motherless.
I believe that is true about vaccines as well; there are some places where the cattle /animals are treated with better health and preventative measures.
That's because cattle are property and worth money. Humans here are no longer (so far) property, so much more expendable. Especially if God tells you you're absolutely right.
Impeccably written and could not better express the sentiments of those of us who see the glaring hypocrisy and self-serving agenda of the GOP who either support or stay silent in the face of this tragic decision. Thank you for taking the time to write this and for encouraging others to share your thoughts verbatim.
Laura-Thank you for your excellent letter. I am a fellow Minnesotan and will use your letter as a framework when I write to all of our GOP self-righteous cowards. Perhaps we will meet at a local pro Choice rally.
Thank you - clear and powerful. And once again, I face the fact that I do not live in a state with representation, even though I live in the nation's capitol.
Thank you for this excellent letter. I live in Illinois, luckily a blue state . However two wealthy conservatives are throwing millions into races here to flip IL red. This is particularly true in two IL Supreme Court seats with 10 year terms. If they win both of those seats, choice in IL will be at risk. And IL is the ONLY state between New England and Colorado where abortion is secure. After our primary, I’m sending a version of this as a letter to the tribune and other papers.
Dobbs will prompt a much needed re-examination of the role of the Supreme Court in our society and government. The people will not tolerate a Court that destroys our rights to vindicate the theological goals of a minority. I don’t think the Court will survive this in its current form.
I hope you are right. I feel we are so scattered with attacks on so many fronts. Mits hard to stay focused and strong in our advocacy. But so important.
Is the thirteenth amendment a potential protection of a woman’s right to choice on reproductive healthcare?
Roe v. Wade, now a precedent case overturned by the recent Supreme Court decision on Dobbs v.Jackson Women’s Healthcare relied on the protection to the right of privacy interpreted to exist in the Roe decision. Now that this privacy protection of the fourteenth amendment has been abandoned by the Supreme Court is there another Constitutional provision that might restore women’s rights? Some have suggested the thirteenth amendment may offer this option.
“Neither slavery nor 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.”
I propose pulling the Thirteenth Amendment from the shelf of history, dusting it off, and putting it to work — in particular as to the “involuntary servitude” of laws restricting women’s choice in abortion.
I invite all to read in full this argument for the use of the thirteenth amendment as a justification to support allowing women reproductive choice. This approach has been suggested by Professor Tribe and others and I believe has merit. Though it is perhaps doubtful to be deemed by the present SCOTUS Conservative majority to be available, I believe it should be pursued.
Bruce, While the right to privacy is not mentioned in the Constitution, I had understood that the High Court, some time ago, had established that several of the Amendments create this right. Notwithstanding the foregoing, and with all due respect to Emeritus Professor Tribe, in the case of Roe, I am partial to the Ninth Amendment that, simplified, states, “The Federal government doesn’t own the rights that are not listed in the Constitution; instead, they belong to the people.”
I agree that the ninth amendment, also a portion of the first ten known as the Bill of Rights, may offer such protections. Here is an excellent essay on this very subject:
However, it is also possible the current Conservative majority in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Healthcare decision may see their referral of the issue of abortion to "their elected representatives" as having precluded this approach as having returned the decision "to the people" via their elected representatives.
I certainly do not consider myself a legal or Constitutional scholar. However, I welcome every approach that is suggested by those with more knowledge on this subject and better qualified than I do suggest a viable approach to reversing this egregious decision.
I also have always and continue to subscribe to Ruth Bader Ginsburg's reply when asked how many women on the Supreme Court were enough. Her reply, "Nine." Unfortunately, she should have been more specific about their theocratic leanings in her reply.
Bruce, Dare I say that I favor a reasonably gendered balanced Court that also is multi-ethnic, multi-generational, and, most important, seeks to expand rather than exclude rights with the provision that with freedom comes responsibility, a Court, in other words, whose composition seeks to mirror the “better angels” of the population it is designated to serve.
Bruce, The High Court expressly passed the right to the states, a ruling prohibited by the Ninth Amendment, which clearly establishes that any right not assigned to the federal government nor to the states belongs to the people.
Barbara Jo-this current majority if SCOTUS has decided that Stare Decisis and the Federal Supremacy clause embedded in the Constitution no longer matter. They are feeling emboldened to destroy more of the Constitution in their eagerness to undo what has been gained to help the people of the U.S. I expect that they will say that states may ignore the EPA regulations and pollute @ will when the decision of EPA v. West Virginia is announced.
Barbara, Regarding West Virginia v. EPA, I share your concern of how the current High Court will rule. As for Stare Decisis, I would note that the 1954 Brown v. Board ruling overturned precedent (Plessy v. Ferguson). The differences are that the Warren Court, first, was expanding rights and, second, had demanded that the ruling be unanimous.
Bruce Carpenter, while you may not consider yourself a constitutional scholar. I don’t think the 6 Republican justices are either. They are throwing out any precedent that they personally don’t like and the rule of law into the trash can.
@JennSH, Though your comment is not addressed to me, I, nonetheless, would submit that these Justices are Constitutional scholars, who, like several of their predecessors, are perpetuating a fraud on the American public.
"a condition in which one lacks liberty especially to determine one's course of action or way of life"
Servitude is certainly the very condition that has just been imposed on all women of childbearing age in this country and all who help them get or who provide the help they need.
Right of Privacy in Florida Constitution. Do other states have similar ?
“SECTION 23. Right of privacy.—Every natural person has the right to be let alone and free from governmental intrusion into the person’s private life except as otherwise provided herein. This section shall not be construed to limit the public’s right of access to public records and meetings as provided by law.”
I hope this suggestion will be introduced in every state legislature and possibly at the federal level.
“ I am borrowing this from Robert Veitch of Richfield. His suggestion is spot on.
Overturning Roe requires another law to be passed that ensures men bear equal responsibility for pregnancies. Call it the “Personal Responsibility Act”.
Using DNA as a verification, paternity for every embryo should be established and the male responsible obliged by law to support the woman and the child through the child’s (life) including medical costs, living costs, education-all the costs a father normally assumes for his child. In addition, the child should have a full share of the father’s estate if and when the father dies.
If women cannot decide whether or not to carry a child, fathers should not be able to decide whether or not to support the woman and the child. It’s about time men assume responsibility for the consequences of their pleasure.”
Thanks for this cogent explanation, Robert. One key difference between today and 1973 is that we have abortion medication and the internet. We need to move the pills around not women. However, for the last 22 years the FDA has kept the pills in the most restricted category with medications like thalidomide. For no medical reason. Please sign and share my petition urging the FDA to lift the restrictions: https://chng.it/yrnDnmzv
Not by edict procedurally but, by the transformation of existing Federal medical facilities on Federal land. We still have a Supremacy Clause in the U.S. Constitution. We do have Army, Navy, Airforce & Coast Guard Hospitals & grave criminal, sexual assault issues in the armed forces. This is not a "Work Around"; this is the Law of the Land.
AOC suggested this morning on "Meet The Press" that President Biden create abortion facilities on Federal Lands within "red" states. I'm very interested in what happens to that suggestion going forward.
Professor Joyce Joyce Vance weighed in advising of likely "patchwork" litigation which does not mean stop. Targeting Federal facilities already built for medical, post-op, security & venue matters.
There’s an article by Aaron Tang in todays NYT saying Merrick Garland is doing just that! It’s a great article about how to circumvent rogue Supreme Court decisions by enacting good state laws to counteract their effects. Worth reading. States are already responding to these three new decisions .
Listened to slick and creepy South Dakota Governor on Face the Nation this morning. Sounds like they will go after any on-line doctor who prescribes abortion drugs.
Here's one of our huge problems. We too easily are intimidated by their fascist tactics. They want us to be scared and paralyzed. In New York, the Governor signed legislation two weeks ago indemnifying practitioners from other states. CA is doing the same. It will be a while before we fully understand the chaos that is happening legally, and within all of those broken places are opportunities for people to access abortion medication from aidaccess.org before they're pregnant. We need to be fearless and focused!!
Thanks I signed and donated and passed it on to 10 others. I also suggested they CALL their Senators and Reps and the White House to get them on board to change the FDA restrictions. I do believe that viable lawsuits will challenge this new ruling. Can we sue the Supreme Court as well? How far they have fallen….
Dobbs will be spoken of with the same derision and disgust as Dred Scott in our history books. This decision is an utter betrayal of our Constitutional history and tradition, and among the most consequential violations of human rights in America in our lifetimes.
Thanks for laying out many of the issues with this heinous miscarriage of the law. We simply MUST rise up and give POTUS a FIRM Democratically controlled House & Senate so that the court can be expanded, the filibuster can be modified, progress can be made. Be angry and grieve, yes, but turn that grief into action!!
As a young medical student in the late 60’s I witnessed the bleeding infected women as they filed into our hospital after botched “garage type” abortions. It was always Friday nite -after pay day. As a young Ob/Gyn I leaned the safe techniques of pregnancy termination. I performed the procedure on young women and saw the relief on their faces to have the burden of an unwanted pregnancy lifted from their souls.
A woman’s right to chose has always been a litmus test for my voting.
Now I feel deflated and sad, scared for the next woman who might lose her life or have a new burden turn her dreams into ashes.
I pray that as we once rose to defeat enemies of democracy, we shall arise to defeat a right wing portion of our country that feel they have the right to take away a woman’s rights.
As Robert Hubbell has lifted our heavy hearts in the past with action based strategies we look forward to his leadership and guidance.
I spent my life caring for women. Let us now rise to protect their health and their rights to control their own bodies.
Me too - a young medical student in 1969 in Newark NJ, seeing women come into the ER in sepsis after botched home abortions. These men (and woman) on the court have absolutely no idea of the suffering they have caused. On the other hand, arguably Fox and the GOP are responsible for an extra 500,000 deaths in US from Covid by eschewing vaccination and other rational measures. So mass harm seems to be a well used card in their playbook.
I greatly appreciate your newsletter. I am a woman, and I have a legal question. Let us assume that I am a perfect match to donate a kidney or liver to someone, and that such a donation would save the person's life. I believe I cannot be forced to do so under current law. I also believe it is true that my organs cannot be harvested after my death without my permission. Why is my womb not under my control in the same way? Even if a person truly believed that life began at conception, shouldn't the same rules apply?Why should a woman be forced to use her organs or, at the risk of her life, her very body, for the sake of another human? Could anti-abortion laws be challenged in this way, since privacy or separation of church and state do not seem to be sufficiently "originalist" concepts for this cult. (As a Jew, I am also eager to see how the court wriggles out of the challenge from the synagogue in Florida.)
I think it shouldn't matter that there will be enough senate votes to convict any of the justices. The fact of impeachment, either for lying under oath or for failure to notify the public and the litigants of a direct conflict of interest, or to recuse in such circumstance, will bring the opprobrium of history upon them; and will help to solidify the public's view that this court was created in a corrupt manner and utilizes a corrupt jurisprudence ("originalism") to upend the rule of law and to destroy the liberty interests of half our population and their equality before the law. Democrats must go on offense even when it is impolite or may have political repercussions.
Impeachment works the same for Supreme Court justices as for the President. The House initiates the process and impeaches by majority vote. The Senate votes to convict or acquit. Conviction requires a 2/3 vote of the Senate.
I agree with people's comments about the political difficulties and possible benefits involved in seeking to impeach these (or any) justices. A good brief overview of the history and mechanics of judicial impeachment is by the Brennan Center:
Unfortunately, I fear that after the failure of Trump’s two impeachments, there won’t be any appetite for more symbolic gestures without the expectation of conviction - Republicans in the Senate are no more likely to convict lying Justices than a lying or criminal President. To vindicate the requirement for telling the truth during confirmations it should be done. I fear it will not be.
Come back to this tool after the next National Election. Still have 1 or 2 decisions to be published. Next year's Docket (Shadow or otherwise) has important cases scheduled.
Especially them, since both were accused by women of their sexist improprieties during their hearings, which, of course were disregarded by those Congressmen on the panel.
Thank you for your always thoughtful comments, Mr. Hubbell. I am too grief stricken, outraged, angry, and sad all at once to be able to comment coherently. What I keep thinking of is my three granddaughters, and how we have failed them. We must right this grievance wrong, though at the moment it is difficult to see how we wrest control from the tyrannical and hyper radical minority.
And where in this ruling about unwanted pregnancy (which it takes two to make) does it order anything other than 100% of the impact falling upon women. The four male justices you mentioned who ignore the burdens and risks placed upon the pregnant women have made sure they are forced to carry a pregnancy they did not want or expect, perhaps for one of a variety of reasons. And this does not at all impact the other person who caused the pregnancy. No legal support required. The woman is left out there on her own. That is true oppression by those justices. Neither the father not the state will be ordered to help support the unwanted child. How does that help anybody? And oh, yeah, a fetus less than 16 weeks is not a child. It’s just not. And oh, yeah, it’s not always or even mostly, an easy decision to “just go have an abortion.” These are many burdens placed on the one without the [“rhymes with Venus”].
Except in Georgia. At the moment of a heartbeat (6weeks) it will have full personhood. The bill states that “’natural person’” means any human being including an unborn child.” Such language marks a new frontier in the fight over reproductive rights, and it’s not at all clear how it will play out in the real world. In Georgia, expectant parents can claim the fetus as a dependent on tax forms, which will cost the state millions of dollars in lost tax revenue, though the state never estimated the full cost. It also opens up a whole new territory surrounding the criminalization of pregnancy and how the state could treat miscarriages or stillbirths, including those that occur in wanted pregnancies. There has also been discussion of child support from the father starting at 6weeks.
I only want to share the words of my 26-year-old daughter, a Nicu nurse, and now a pediatric nurse who sees many many unfit parents.
”This morning when I heard the news I initially performed a quick but worried eye roll and continued on with my day. Not because I didn’t care, but because we unfortunately were all acutely aware this news was on the horizon. As the day went on I got angry, so very angry. I crafted many indignant, expletive filled posts, but none seemed to capture the true outrage I was feeling. I went on to search for answers; ways to support women, looked for signs of hope. And now, I weep. I weep for the women who will die not only from unsafe abortions but also from forcefully carrying out pregnancies that threaten a mother’s health. I weep for marginalized women, who will be affected by and die from these laws at a disproportionate rate. I weep for women who will now have motherhood forced upon them, despite not being ready, willing, or able to care for a child. I weep for the rape and incest victims, who will now be forced for carry and birth their abusers children in many states. I weep for the female babies that will be born, unknowingly coming into a world that stops advocating for their rights the moment they take their first breaths. Abortion is healthcare, and I weep for the loss of such an essential right. I weep because I fear this is not the end, but the beginning of rights being stripped in this country. I weep for those who came before, and fought so fervently for these rights, and for those who will come after, and have to fight the same fight again. I weep for America. We cannot accept this. We will not accept this. While I weep, I unequivocally dissent.”
As a retired obstetrician/gynecologist, I am old enough to have seen what happens to women whose only choice is to have an abortion performed by someone who is not licensed or qualified. I have seen what happens to the lives of women who have children they cannot afford or support because it takes everything they have just to keep themselves moving forward, and the courage and strength it takes for individuals to end a much-wanted pregnancy in order to save their genetically or physically compromised child from suffering and certain death. And sadly, I have seen what happens to children who are born into homes where they are unwanted, abandoned or worse. I feel I no longer know the country in which I live, a place where wearing a mask during a global pandemic or being prevented from carrying a gun in public places is considered an infringement of personal freedoms, while being forced to carry a pregnancy you cannot afford or did not desire is considered just fine. I am heartbroken that we will have to try to fight this fight again.
Why do we disagree at such length and so fervently about abortion? The answer is simple: there’s no way to irrefutably determine who is right and wrong about the issue. To some, humans have souls that bestow sanctity. The non-religious laugh at the concept, yet know that there is indeed something special about the embryo at some point. Some believe that life begins at conception, others disagree and feel that there is no real sentience until much later. Some believe that the unborn have rights, and others believe that the rights accrue to the host until birth. As varied and contradictory as these ideas are, they are all somehow based in one’s religion, personal philosophy, education, or upbringing, and hence, each person will have their own (usually strong) opinions on the issue. But in the end, it all boils down to opinion – not provable fact. And as a result, considerable latitude must be given when judging the viewpoints of others in this matter.
Earlier this week the Supreme Court decided that decisions on abortion should be relegated to the States instead of the Federal Government, the purported rationale being that such decisions should be made by the voters, and closer to home. Well that’s a good start, but how about extending that line of thought a little further? Why not place abortion decisions even closer to those affected – say, instead to the State, the County, or town, or – how about this – the home or family of the concerned individual? Certainly they know their particular circumstances and the impacts of their decisions better than any governmental body, and are therefore best suited to make them in a manner that best aligns with their adopted, yet ultimately unprovable beliefs.
when there is no way out of poverty; my grandma had 14 pregnancies living in poverty -- on the death certificate for her twins is recorded "malnutrition." Only 5 of her children survived the conditions of poverty that attended the pregnancy and birth. My mom had 8 children; my father was disabled after World War One.. living through the depression of the 30s and the war of the 40s again concentrated poverty. My sister's husband died at age 36 (after his service in the Korean War) leaving her with 6 children to raise in poverty. If it had not been for abortion , my wall of family would not have my earned doctorate; it took 3 generations to get out of poverty (no thanks, to the many wars that took fathers out of the homes to save somewhere in the world..)... Now we have "shock and awe" on our own children with military weapons and we have state laws that will force births. This is nothing except creating cannon fodder from the youngsters, the "Workforce" that the corporatists and trying to own ; and the continuation of poverty throughout our cities and towns. So sad we never learned this lesson and we are heading back to Dickensian conditions.
Here is the letter I just wrote to my so-called Representative Pete Stauber, after receiving his latest newsletter. Your readers are welcome to borrow the language when they write to their anti-choice politicians.
Dear Rep Stauber,
I was sickened by your celebration of the overturning of Roe v Wade by the extremist majority in the Supreme Court. Two justices lied in their confirmation hearings when they indicated that Roe was ’settled law’ and they did not intend to overturn it. Poll after poll shows that most Americans did NOT want Roe to be overturned, no matter what their personal preferences. The illegitimate SCOTUS is happy to overturn state laws regulating guns but give states total say about whether girls and women have the right to reproductive health care. Clarence Thomas, who also lied in his confirmation hearings, has indicated that birth control and marriage equality are next. These decisions fly in the face ‘majority rule,’ a bedrock of our faltering democracy.
You are in a very privileged position to be able to afford to have five children and have good health care coverage provided by US tax payers. Most people seeking abortions in the US today are low-income mothers. This decision is a blatant attack especially on low-income girls and women around the country. You are forcing incredible pain and hardship on the most vulnerable people, many of whom don’t have access to the health care they need to prevent unwanted pregnancies, thanks to Republican attacks on Planned Parenthood and Medicaid expansion. You are putting doctors at risk of imprisonment for providing essential health care.
If you think all life has value, then why do you and your fellow Republicans consistently cut aid to low income families? You force girls and women to bear children they do not want and cannot afford, then make it even harder for them to bear and raise these children. Adoption is NOT the answer for most of them. Even intended pregnancies take a toll on our health and our bodies.
Your version of the ’sanctity of life’ clearly does not apply to living, breathing, conscious people. You well know that the vast majority of abortions take place within the first three months of pregnancy, long before fetal viability and consciousness. The tiny minority of abortions taking place later involve very hard decisions that should be made by women and their doctors, not distant elites in gerrymandered districts in their comfortable offices, pretending to care. The US will soon have stories like those that have emerged recently in anti-choice Poland, such as the death of a healthy mother of four who died this year of septic shock after doctors refused to terminate her failing pregnancy with twins. The first fetus died in the womb on December 23, but doctors refused to remove it, due to abortion laws, and her health deteriorated. The hospital waited until the heartbeat of the second twin stopped a week later, and waited a further two days before terminating the pregnancy on December 31. The woman, Agneiszka, died on January 25. Don’t forget her name, or the names of Americans that will soon follow, thanks to a minority of Republican extremists like you. Already, American women in some states are being prosecuted after having miscarriages. Young teens are exhausting family savings by having to travel hundreds of miles and spend thousands of dollars for a safe abortion.
Shame on you. Your hypocrisy and cruelty will not be forgotten this November. You are ignoring what most Minnesotans, and most Americans, want: for abortion to be safe, legal and rare.
Thank you for sharing this articulate and absolutely on-point letter and giving permission for us to use it. I’m particularly appreciative as I personally seem paralyzed and unable to put my thoughts to paper right now. The only thought I seem to have is that I believe all federal judges can be impeached, and this seems an appropriate time to look at the viability of such action against at least 3 and maybe 4 of the current so-called justices who clearly lied during their confirmation hearings. Hoping some familiar with those laws will weigh in on that possibility. Thank you, Laura.
If you haven't seen it, you may be interested in what Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said on "Meet The Press" today. After Chuck Todd referenced the statements by Senators Manchin and Collins about being misled about Roe by Kavanaugh and Gorsuch, AOC said she believes lying under oath is an impeachable offense.
She said "If we allow Supreme Court nominees to lie under oath and secure lifetime appointments to the highest court of the land and then issue, without basis--if you read these opinions--issue without basis, rulings that deeply undermine the human and civil rights of the majority of Americans, we must see that through. There must be consequences for such a deeply destabilizing action and hostile takeover of our democratic institutions. . . . And what makes it particularly dangerous is that it sends a blaring signal to all future nominees that they can now lie to duly elected members of the United States Senate in order to secure Supreme Court confirmations and seats on the Supreme Court."
https://www.nbc.com/meet-the-press/video/full-aoc-the-supreme-court-has-dramatically-overreached-its-authority/NBCN859845537
Thank you for this and the link. We should all be calling for their impeachment.
You're welcome. I agree. We need to investigate their impeachment. We have seen so much blatant lying by Republicans clawing for power in the past 6 years that we have to put those lies front and center--be they by a sociopathic president or fundamentalist Christian Supreme Court justices, all of them flaunting a total lack of respect for the rule of law--if we want to try and save our democracy.
"You are in a very privileged position to be able to afford to have five children and have good health care coverage" .... this is so true -- it makes me so angry to see the smug Amy Barrett and of course we had republican governors like the wealthy Romney.... Yes, the doctors have lost their professional autonomy; they have studied for generations the ectopic pregnant, the pre-eclampsia, the surgical necessities of a birth if the fetus has already deceased in the womb... but they will have to be cautious in their decisions and advice for fear of the ciminalization of their work and their profession.... So the doctors will hand the mom with an ectopic pregnancy a referral to the psychiatrist as happened to my friend in the 1970s.
Superb! You said it all. If there was any way to dismiss those three “Justices” ( what irony) from the Court this year, I’m sure it would be done. Unfortunately, we have some of our best minds criminally dealing with the fools that put them there! Mitch Mc Connell always seems to escape unscathed from all he destroys. That level of manipulation has a special place in Hell.
Couldn’t agree more about Mitch—and the others. We need to be certain they pay for their evil at the polls.
Thank you thank you for this comprehensive response. I live in Ohio and I am going to take your letter and with appropriate modification, send it to all our GOP representatives and Senator. Will it do any good? I don't know. But I assure you that in November I and my family and all my friends who want to stay my friends will do all we can do vote the bums out. If we don't American democracy dies.
We also live in OH, and we are right there with you, starting with Mike DeWine.
I live in Ohio too, and I am already livid about the corrupt Republican regime that ignored four rulings by the Ohio Supreme Court on the unconstitutionality of their gerrymandered maps. They blatantly refused to consider maps that met the criteria for bipartisan consensus and proportionate representation. Their only concern is to maintain a power imbalance that allows them to pass the most extreme legislation, regardless of what the people want. I would like to send this letter to my representatives.
Do it! It’s a great letter.
I have it ready!
Yes.
Also from OHIO - and I agree!
Really well written. It will be interesting to see what, if any, response you get from the recipient. I've sent this off to my Rep, Ann Wagner and the junior Senator from MO. I'll pass along any substantive response I get from either.
Folks who raise dairy cows or beef cattle would not leave a dead or dying calf inside a mother. But that is exactly what these stupid, draconian laws do. They treat women with less concern than is shown for farm animals. Think on that as you remember Agneiska leaving four children motherless.
I believe that is true about vaccines as well; there are some places where the cattle /animals are treated with better health and preventative measures.
That's because cattle are property and worth money. Humans here are no longer (so far) property, so much more expendable. Especially if God tells you you're absolutely right.
Impeccably written and could not better express the sentiments of those of us who see the glaring hypocrisy and self-serving agenda of the GOP who either support or stay silent in the face of this tragic decision. Thank you for taking the time to write this and for encouraging others to share your thoughts verbatim.
This is an incredibly fine piece of writing. Thank you.
Laura-Thank you for your excellent letter. I am a fellow Minnesotan and will use your letter as a framework when I write to all of our GOP self-righteous cowards. Perhaps we will meet at a local pro Choice rally.
Brilliant letter. Thank you for sharing.
This is ON point!!!
Thank you - clear and powerful. And once again, I face the fact that I do not live in a state with representation, even though I live in the nation's capitol.
And that fact, I and of itself, needs to be corrected post haste!
Thank you for this excellent letter. I live in Illinois, luckily a blue state . However two wealthy conservatives are throwing millions into races here to flip IL red. This is particularly true in two IL Supreme Court seats with 10 year terms. If they win both of those seats, choice in IL will be at risk. And IL is the ONLY state between New England and Colorado where abortion is secure. After our primary, I’m sending a version of this as a letter to the tribune and other papers.
Brava and A+, Laura.
Beautifully, heartbreakingly said.
Surely will use it to send to my representative. !!! Thanks!!!!
Dobbs will prompt a much needed re-examination of the role of the Supreme Court in our society and government. The people will not tolerate a Court that destroys our rights to vindicate the theological goals of a minority. I don’t think the Court will survive this in its current form.
I hope you are right. I feel we are so scattered with attacks on so many fronts. Mits hard to stay focused and strong in our advocacy. But so important.
I hope not.
Is the thirteenth amendment a potential protection of a woman’s right to choice on reproductive healthcare?
Roe v. Wade, now a precedent case overturned by the recent Supreme Court decision on Dobbs v.Jackson Women’s Healthcare relied on the protection to the right of privacy interpreted to exist in the Roe decision. Now that this privacy protection of the fourteenth amendment has been abandoned by the Supreme Court is there another Constitutional provision that might restore women’s rights? Some have suggested the thirteenth amendment may offer this option.
https://qcp.medium.com/resurrecting-the-thirteenth-amendment-to-save-womens-control-over-their-bodies-their-labor-8246da5afb17
The thirteenth amendment reads as follows:
“Neither slavery nor 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.”
I propose pulling the Thirteenth Amendment from the shelf of history, dusting it off, and putting it to work — in particular as to the “involuntary servitude” of laws restricting women’s choice in abortion.
I invite all to read in full this argument for the use of the thirteenth amendment as a justification to support allowing women reproductive choice. This approach has been suggested by Professor Tribe and others and I believe has merit. Though it is perhaps doubtful to be deemed by the present SCOTUS Conservative majority to be available, I believe it should be pursued.
Bruce, While the right to privacy is not mentioned in the Constitution, I had understood that the High Court, some time ago, had established that several of the Amendments create this right. Notwithstanding the foregoing, and with all due respect to Emeritus Professor Tribe, in the case of Roe, I am partial to the Ninth Amendment that, simplified, states, “The Federal government doesn’t own the rights that are not listed in the Constitution; instead, they belong to the people.”
I agree that the ninth amendment, also a portion of the first ten known as the Bill of Rights, may offer such protections. Here is an excellent essay on this very subject:
https://www.wtamu.edu/webres/File/Academics/College%20of%20Education%20and%20Social%20Sciences/Department%20of%20Political%20Science%20and%20Criminal%20Justice/PBJ/2009/1n2/1n2_02Thedford.pdf
However, it is also possible the current Conservative majority in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Healthcare decision may see their referral of the issue of abortion to "their elected representatives" as having precluded this approach as having returned the decision "to the people" via their elected representatives.
I certainly do not consider myself a legal or Constitutional scholar. However, I welcome every approach that is suggested by those with more knowledge on this subject and better qualified than I do suggest a viable approach to reversing this egregious decision.
I also have always and continue to subscribe to Ruth Bader Ginsburg's reply when asked how many women on the Supreme Court were enough. Her reply, "Nine." Unfortunately, she should have been more specific about their theocratic leanings in her reply.
Bruce, Dare I say that I favor a reasonably gendered balanced Court that also is multi-ethnic, multi-generational, and, most important, seeks to expand rather than exclude rights with the provision that with freedom comes responsibility, a Court, in other words, whose composition seeks to mirror the “better angels” of the population it is designated to serve.
Bruce, The High Court expressly passed the right to the states, a ruling prohibited by the Ninth Amendment, which clearly establishes that any right not assigned to the federal government nor to the states belongs to the people.
I do not disagree with that view.
Barbara Jo-this current majority if SCOTUS has decided that Stare Decisis and the Federal Supremacy clause embedded in the Constitution no longer matter. They are feeling emboldened to destroy more of the Constitution in their eagerness to undo what has been gained to help the people of the U.S. I expect that they will say that states may ignore the EPA regulations and pollute @ will when the decision of EPA v. West Virginia is announced.
Barbara, Regarding West Virginia v. EPA, I share your concern of how the current High Court will rule. As for Stare Decisis, I would note that the 1954 Brown v. Board ruling overturned precedent (Plessy v. Ferguson). The differences are that the Warren Court, first, was expanding rights and, second, had demanded that the ruling be unanimous.
Bruce Carpenter, while you may not consider yourself a constitutional scholar. I don’t think the 6 Republican justices are either. They are throwing out any precedent that they personally don’t like and the rule of law into the trash can.
@JennSH, Though your comment is not addressed to me, I, nonetheless, would submit that these Justices are Constitutional scholars, who, like several of their predecessors, are perpetuating a fraud on the American public.
I would say they are constitutional manipulators. They surely are perpetrating fraud on the American public.
@JennSH, Granted. Nonetheless, one need have knowledge of a document in order to manipulate its contents with impunity.
Servitude, as defined by Merriam-Webster:
"a condition in which one lacks liberty especially to determine one's course of action or way of life"
Servitude is certainly the very condition that has just been imposed on all women of childbearing age in this country and all who help them get or who provide the help they need.
Right of Privacy in Florida Constitution. Do other states have similar ?
“SECTION 23. Right of privacy.—Every natural person has the right to be let alone and free from governmental intrusion into the person’s private life except as otherwise provided herein. This section shall not be construed to limit the public’s right of access to public records and meetings as provided by law.”
I hope this suggestion will be introduced in every state legislature and possibly at the federal level.
“ I am borrowing this from Robert Veitch of Richfield. His suggestion is spot on.
Overturning Roe requires another law to be passed that ensures men bear equal responsibility for pregnancies. Call it the “Personal Responsibility Act”.
Using DNA as a verification, paternity for every embryo should be established and the male responsible obliged by law to support the woman and the child through the child’s (life) including medical costs, living costs, education-all the costs a father normally assumes for his child. In addition, the child should have a full share of the father’s estate if and when the father dies.
If women cannot decide whether or not to carry a child, fathers should not be able to decide whether or not to support the woman and the child. It’s about time men assume responsibility for the consequences of their pleasure.”
I would also add one more responsibility and that is caregiving. Fathers should not be allowed to buy their way out of this responsibility.
Sadly, people cannot be paid to care.
Thanks for this cogent explanation, Robert. One key difference between today and 1973 is that we have abortion medication and the internet. We need to move the pills around not women. However, for the last 22 years the FDA has kept the pills in the most restricted category with medications like thalidomide. For no medical reason. Please sign and share my petition urging the FDA to lift the restrictions: https://chng.it/yrnDnmzv
Done. As a retired physician providing decades of women’s healthcare, I agree this should be done quickly, perhaps by Presidential edict.
Not by edict procedurally but, by the transformation of existing Federal medical facilities on Federal land. We still have a Supremacy Clause in the U.S. Constitution. We do have Army, Navy, Airforce & Coast Guard Hospitals & grave criminal, sexual assault issues in the armed forces. This is not a "Work Around"; this is the Law of the Land.
AOC suggested this morning on "Meet The Press" that President Biden create abortion facilities on Federal Lands within "red" states. I'm very interested in what happens to that suggestion going forward.
AOC spot on.
Professor Joyce Joyce Vance weighed in advising of likely "patchwork" litigation which does not mean stop. Targeting Federal facilities already built for medical, post-op, security & venue matters.
Thank you! We need more clinicians advocating for this.
There’s an article by Aaron Tang in todays NYT saying Merrick Garland is doing just that! It’s a great article about how to circumvent rogue Supreme Court decisions by enacting good state laws to counteract their effects. Worth reading. States are already responding to these three new decisions .
Super reference Diane, thank you. NYT's Charlie Savage takes a deep dive on Alioto's Tell-tale Tracks over the years: https://nyti.ms/3ODw2P9
Listened to slick and creepy South Dakota Governor on Face the Nation this morning. Sounds like they will go after any on-line doctor who prescribes abortion drugs.
Here's one of our huge problems. We too easily are intimidated by their fascist tactics. They want us to be scared and paralyzed. In New York, the Governor signed legislation two weeks ago indemnifying practitioners from other states. CA is doing the same. It will be a while before we fully understand the chaos that is happening legally, and within all of those broken places are opportunities for people to access abortion medication from aidaccess.org before they're pregnant. We need to be fearless and focused!!
Definitely don't 'Like' this, but I'm glad you posted it.
Thanks I signed and donated and passed it on to 10 others. I also suggested they CALL their Senators and Reps and the White House to get them on board to change the FDA restrictions. I do believe that viable lawsuits will challenge this new ruling. Can we sue the Supreme Court as well? How far they have fallen….
Nancy Etheridge
Signed and forwarded. Thank you for thinking of this.
Done!
thank you!! please share!
Yes, done!
Darn. Got a "bad gateway" screen. --> I tried again and got the site, signed the change.org petition, and shared the site on Facebook.
Signed and shared. Thank you for this.
Signed.
Done, getting closer.
The day after pill is available on Amazon. They have a two year expiration date.
Done
DONE.
Thank you!
I have had detailed discussions with young Docs concerning maternal, obstetrical & fetal diseases.
Thank you for the link. Signed & forwarded!
Done - over 1,000 signatures now!
Done!
Thank YOU!!! Please share!
Dobbs will be spoken of with the same derision and disgust as Dred Scott in our history books. This decision is an utter betrayal of our Constitutional history and tradition, and among the most consequential violations of human rights in America in our lifetimes.
To be clear, Dobbs is nothing less than an attack on the full humanity and citizenship of American women.
Yes
Dobbs — a name that will live in infamy.
Thanks for laying out many of the issues with this heinous miscarriage of the law. We simply MUST rise up and give POTUS a FIRM Democratically controlled House & Senate so that the court can be expanded, the filibuster can be modified, progress can be made. Be angry and grieve, yes, but turn that grief into action!!
As a young medical student in the late 60’s I witnessed the bleeding infected women as they filed into our hospital after botched “garage type” abortions. It was always Friday nite -after pay day. As a young Ob/Gyn I leaned the safe techniques of pregnancy termination. I performed the procedure on young women and saw the relief on their faces to have the burden of an unwanted pregnancy lifted from their souls.
A woman’s right to chose has always been a litmus test for my voting.
Now I feel deflated and sad, scared for the next woman who might lose her life or have a new burden turn her dreams into ashes.
I pray that as we once rose to defeat enemies of democracy, we shall arise to defeat a right wing portion of our country that feel they have the right to take away a woman’s rights.
As Robert Hubbell has lifted our heavy hearts in the past with action based strategies we look forward to his leadership and guidance.
I spent my life caring for women. Let us now rise to protect their health and their rights to control their own bodies.
Me too - a young medical student in 1969 in Newark NJ, seeing women come into the ER in sepsis after botched home abortions. These men (and woman) on the court have absolutely no idea of the suffering they have caused. On the other hand, arguably Fox and the GOP are responsible for an extra 500,000 deaths in US from Covid by eschewing vaccination and other rational measures. So mass harm seems to be a well used card in their playbook.
I greatly appreciate your newsletter. I am a woman, and I have a legal question. Let us assume that I am a perfect match to donate a kidney or liver to someone, and that such a donation would save the person's life. I believe I cannot be forced to do so under current law. I also believe it is true that my organs cannot be harvested after my death without my permission. Why is my womb not under my control in the same way? Even if a person truly believed that life began at conception, shouldn't the same rules apply?Why should a woman be forced to use her organs or, at the risk of her life, her very body, for the sake of another human? Could anti-abortion laws be challenged in this way, since privacy or separation of church and state do not seem to be sufficiently "originalist" concepts for this cult. (As a Jew, I am also eager to see how the court wriggles out of the challenge from the synagogue in Florida.)
It is rather a question - is there a process which exists to impeach or remove a Supreme Court Justice?
Yes. Supreme court justices can be impeached and removed.
But not with the current senate and congress..
I think it shouldn't matter that there will be enough senate votes to convict any of the justices. The fact of impeachment, either for lying under oath or for failure to notify the public and the litigants of a direct conflict of interest, or to recuse in such circumstance, will bring the opprobrium of history upon them; and will help to solidify the public's view that this court was created in a corrupt manner and utilizes a corrupt jurisprudence ("originalism") to upend the rule of law and to destroy the liberty interests of half our population and their equality before the law. Democrats must go on offense even when it is impolite or may have political repercussions.
Here's Glenn Kirschner's discussion re judicial impeachment. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcTykj0KCpM
Calling Clarence and Ginni T.
Thank you. Who is charged with initiating the action?
Impeachment works the same for Supreme Court justices as for the President. The House initiates the process and impeaches by majority vote. The Senate votes to convict or acquit. Conviction requires a 2/3 vote of the Senate.
There's our challenge!! 2/3's in 22!!
I agree with people's comments about the political difficulties and possible benefits involved in seeking to impeach these (or any) justices. A good brief overview of the history and mechanics of judicial impeachment is by the Brennan Center:
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/impeachment-and-removal-judges-explainer
Technically yes, however I don’t think it has ever been done. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
Wasn’t Samuel Chase impeached but not convicted (by Senate?)?
Definitely good to know! If it’s been attempted before, it might be easier this time around.
Unfortunately, I fear that after the failure of Trump’s two impeachments, there won’t be any appetite for more symbolic gestures without the expectation of conviction - Republicans in the Senate are no more likely to convict lying Justices than a lying or criminal President. To vindicate the requirement for telling the truth during confirmations it should be done. I fear it will not be.
The impeachment didn't fail, the conviction did, in the Senate. Need a 2/3's majority in "22. It CAN happen now! Women are on fire!
But still impeaching the justices in the house will send a message.
Indeed!
Thank you. Alas. I agree.
Come back to this tool after the next National Election. Still have 1 or 2 decisions to be published. Next year's Docket (Shadow or otherwise) has important cases scheduled.
I had the same thought. I’d like to see Thomas and Kavanaugh removed.
Especially them, since both were accused by women of their sexist improprieties during their hearings, which, of course were disregarded by those Congressmen on the panel.
Thank you for your always thoughtful comments, Mr. Hubbell. I am too grief stricken, outraged, angry, and sad all at once to be able to comment coherently. What I keep thinking of is my three granddaughters, and how we have failed them. We must right this grievance wrong, though at the moment it is difficult to see how we wrest control from the tyrannical and hyper radical minority.
I’m struggling with being coherent myself. Sob
And where in this ruling about unwanted pregnancy (which it takes two to make) does it order anything other than 100% of the impact falling upon women. The four male justices you mentioned who ignore the burdens and risks placed upon the pregnant women have made sure they are forced to carry a pregnancy they did not want or expect, perhaps for one of a variety of reasons. And this does not at all impact the other person who caused the pregnancy. No legal support required. The woman is left out there on her own. That is true oppression by those justices. Neither the father not the state will be ordered to help support the unwanted child. How does that help anybody? And oh, yeah, a fetus less than 16 weeks is not a child. It’s just not. And oh, yeah, it’s not always or even mostly, an easy decision to “just go have an abortion.” These are many burdens placed on the one without the [“rhymes with Venus”].
Except in Georgia. At the moment of a heartbeat (6weeks) it will have full personhood. The bill states that “’natural person’” means any human being including an unborn child.” Such language marks a new frontier in the fight over reproductive rights, and it’s not at all clear how it will play out in the real world. In Georgia, expectant parents can claim the fetus as a dependent on tax forms, which will cost the state millions of dollars in lost tax revenue, though the state never estimated the full cost. It also opens up a whole new territory surrounding the criminalization of pregnancy and how the state could treat miscarriages or stillbirths, including those that occur in wanted pregnancies. There has also been discussion of child support from the father starting at 6weeks.
I wonder if someone could use "Venus" on a bumper sticker with more cleverness than the "Let's Go Brandon" decals?
I only want to share the words of my 26-year-old daughter, a Nicu nurse, and now a pediatric nurse who sees many many unfit parents.
”This morning when I heard the news I initially performed a quick but worried eye roll and continued on with my day. Not because I didn’t care, but because we unfortunately were all acutely aware this news was on the horizon. As the day went on I got angry, so very angry. I crafted many indignant, expletive filled posts, but none seemed to capture the true outrage I was feeling. I went on to search for answers; ways to support women, looked for signs of hope. And now, I weep. I weep for the women who will die not only from unsafe abortions but also from forcefully carrying out pregnancies that threaten a mother’s health. I weep for marginalized women, who will be affected by and die from these laws at a disproportionate rate. I weep for women who will now have motherhood forced upon them, despite not being ready, willing, or able to care for a child. I weep for the rape and incest victims, who will now be forced for carry and birth their abusers children in many states. I weep for the female babies that will be born, unknowingly coming into a world that stops advocating for their rights the moment they take their first breaths. Abortion is healthcare, and I weep for the loss of such an essential right. I weep because I fear this is not the end, but the beginning of rights being stripped in this country. I weep for those who came before, and fought so fervently for these rights, and for those who will come after, and have to fight the same fight again. I weep for America. We cannot accept this. We will not accept this. While I weep, I unequivocally dissent.”
As a retired obstetrician/gynecologist, I am old enough to have seen what happens to women whose only choice is to have an abortion performed by someone who is not licensed or qualified. I have seen what happens to the lives of women who have children they cannot afford or support because it takes everything they have just to keep themselves moving forward, and the courage and strength it takes for individuals to end a much-wanted pregnancy in order to save their genetically or physically compromised child from suffering and certain death. And sadly, I have seen what happens to children who are born into homes where they are unwanted, abandoned or worse. I feel I no longer know the country in which I live, a place where wearing a mask during a global pandemic or being prevented from carrying a gun in public places is considered an infringement of personal freedoms, while being forced to carry a pregnancy you cannot afford or did not desire is considered just fine. I am heartbroken that we will have to try to fight this fight again.
Absolutely! The ironies and hypocrisies are astounding.
Why do we disagree at such length and so fervently about abortion? The answer is simple: there’s no way to irrefutably determine who is right and wrong about the issue. To some, humans have souls that bestow sanctity. The non-religious laugh at the concept, yet know that there is indeed something special about the embryo at some point. Some believe that life begins at conception, others disagree and feel that there is no real sentience until much later. Some believe that the unborn have rights, and others believe that the rights accrue to the host until birth. As varied and contradictory as these ideas are, they are all somehow based in one’s religion, personal philosophy, education, or upbringing, and hence, each person will have their own (usually strong) opinions on the issue. But in the end, it all boils down to opinion – not provable fact. And as a result, considerable latitude must be given when judging the viewpoints of others in this matter.
Earlier this week the Supreme Court decided that decisions on abortion should be relegated to the States instead of the Federal Government, the purported rationale being that such decisions should be made by the voters, and closer to home. Well that’s a good start, but how about extending that line of thought a little further? Why not place abortion decisions even closer to those affected – say, instead to the State, the County, or town, or – how about this – the home or family of the concerned individual? Certainly they know their particular circumstances and the impacts of their decisions better than any governmental body, and are therefore best suited to make them in a manner that best aligns with their adopted, yet ultimately unprovable beliefs.
That sounds like real liberty and freedom to me.
Trevor Noah made the same points on his show. Let’s hope the idea catches on!
when there is no way out of poverty; my grandma had 14 pregnancies living in poverty -- on the death certificate for her twins is recorded "malnutrition." Only 5 of her children survived the conditions of poverty that attended the pregnancy and birth. My mom had 8 children; my father was disabled after World War One.. living through the depression of the 30s and the war of the 40s again concentrated poverty. My sister's husband died at age 36 (after his service in the Korean War) leaving her with 6 children to raise in poverty. If it had not been for abortion , my wall of family would not have my earned doctorate; it took 3 generations to get out of poverty (no thanks, to the many wars that took fathers out of the homes to save somewhere in the world..)... Now we have "shock and awe" on our own children with military weapons and we have state laws that will force births. This is nothing except creating cannon fodder from the youngsters, the "Workforce" that the corporatists and trying to own ; and the continuation of poverty throughout our cities and towns. So sad we never learned this lesson and we are heading back to Dickensian conditions.
Oh my dear Jean. I am so, so sorry for this horror visited on your family.