Women don’t get pregnant without men. Perhaps it would be a better idea to sterilize men (via vasectomy) and then when they’re old enough and mature enough to have a family they can get their sterility reversed.
At this rate, we can expect birth control to be outlawed as well, given that it exists under the same right to privacy that Alito claims does not exist. Funny, I don’t think the use of condoms has every been prosecuted, although women’s use of contraception has been. Wonder why that is….
It never works like that. Society is practical in this way so that, since the baby starts growing in the woman's stomach, it makes sense to have it be her responsibility, what to do with it. Or to ensure it doesn't get there in the first place, e.g., be careful and don't have sex with just anyone. Men are never shamed for being too promiscuous. Women are.
This law, and others like it, has nothing to do with caring about a fetus or a child. It's another attempt to control women. If men could get pregnant, no state legislature would concern itself with abortion.
It’s not about murdering babies. That’s just a smokescreen. Until the fetus reaches the stage where it can maintain viability outside the body, it’s quite debatable if it is a human being or not.
What it is about is bodily autonomy. Consenting to sex does not mean consenting to pregnancy; and becoming pregnant does not mean consenting to carrying the pregnancy to term.
If human life is so paramount, so much so that society has the right to tell someone it has the right to prevail over their bodily autonomy in order to preserve life at all costs, then these “pro-lifers” better be the first ones to start lining up and handing over one of their kidneys, in order to sustain the 250,000 people per year in America who die from kidney disease.
You see… we wouldn’t ever tell a parent who had a child dying of kidney disease that they had to give up one of their kidneys to keep it alive, even though most people can live their entire life with one functioning kidney. That’s because we grant every person bodily autonomy (that wasn’t the case not so many years ago with forced sterilizations and injecting syphilis into black men). We’ve made it so everyone has the right to choose what they want to do with and who they choose to sustain, with their bodies. We don’t even remove this right from a person who’s just died by making mandatory organ donation a requirement! But the Christian Taliban in America have deemed that women along with people in the LGBTQ communities are “less than” and undeserving of these rights.
It’s not about a penis or vagina. It’s not about sex and as much as it’s shrilly shouted from the pulpits, it’s never been about the sanctity of life. It’s about a persons right to controlling their own bodily autonomy, or in this case removing that right from them.
This proposed law is reprehensible! It elevates Christianity to a state religion. Not all religions hold that life begins at contraception and many Americans are atheist or agnostic. I’d argue it’s unconstitutional for that reason, but with this SCOTUS, I’m sure they’d find a way to install radical Christianity as our official religion.
I am not happy to be treated as a vessel. Women’s rights and interest to control their own bodies and health needs to be considered in the equation. Louisiana believes a blastocyst has more rights than I do.
Legislators in Louisiana are barbarians. Most mammals do not attack the females of the species, but Republican "lawmakers" demonstrate malignant and unnatural behavior towards women.
It feels like the red states are now in an arms race to see which can become the most autocratic, judgmental, and anti-women. I don't get why this is a winning strategy. I really don't.
It sickens me that these laws are being championed by ministers, priests, and other supposedly "Christian" people. Again who will take care of, feed, clothe, & parent the babies that will be born to mothers that cant support themselves much less another mouth to feed. I think that all of these good "christian's" should concern themselves more with the children that were already born.
What about a woman that is pregnant and finds out that the baby she is carrying is grossly deformed with no chance of survival. So now the mother will either have a miscarriage at any time, give birth to a stillborn baby, or give birth to a baby with no kidneys, no arms or legs, and no chance of survival. That is cruel & unusual
Continuation: That is cruel & unusual for the woman, the husband, & the family. It is barbaric & horrific. Shame on anyone that would put anyone through that.
Your examples of how Christian conservatives are (NOT) "pro-life," are spot on. Another to add the list: many of these same "pro-lifers" refuse vaccines and masks, so what if they spread COVID and sicken or kill people -- it's their choice what they do with their body, and if they don't choose to take a vaccine or wear mask, no government can make them do it.
The law itself is clearly immoral, and one can only wonder about the so-called Christianity of the reverend who wrote the bill or the LA legislature. Clearly a Christian he is not.
In some countries I understand that women have been imprisoned for having a miscarriage. I am fearful that it might happen here. I and many of my friends have had miscarriages.
Yes, this has been an issue in El Salvador, which prosecutes women for getting abortions. A woman shows up at the hospital with a miscarriage, and a suspicious doctor accuses her of having had an abortion. This is a particular issue with medication abortion, in which women take misoprostol by itself or with mifepristone; this in effected creates a miscarriage that is indistinguishable from a natural miscarriage. So the police have been summoned to the hospital and try to browbeat the woman into confessing that she caused the miscarriage. It's barbaric.
Well, in my experience a law like this, similar to the war on drugs, is always enforced selectively, usually to compel obedience to the mafia. Same thing with all the rape hysteria. And why would I say that?
Oh, look at what I had on my computer all this time I was being targeted unfairly in so many ways. I forgot about it due to suffering memory repression syndrome.
Remember when Gloria Steinem said "it's been found that how women are treated in the home is part of how Genocide happens."
"But Alito's opinion wouldn't ban abortions." No, but it would open that door and states that are controlled by religion zealots will rush through, like Louisiana is planning to. The bill even refers to god. Alito bemoans the impact of Roe but is OK with the pain and upheaval throwing out a 49-year precedent is going to bring? And he tries to distinguish Loving, Griswold and Obergefell as if these same zealots haven't already drawn a bead on them. If they think they're doing god's work with an abortion ban -- and they do -- no right that they don't support is safe.
Thank you, Nick, for this article! We live in scary times. I'm nearly 76, and this is the worst that I can remember. So many have lost faith in our government for multiple reasons. I know people who still think Oregon's voting system is corrupt, even though it's been working very well for over 20 years. And now this! Right now our Democratic Governor and pre-dominiately Democratic Legislature will continue to uphold our reproductive rights, but what happens if the citizens decide to vote for Republicans this time around? Will we women lose our right to self-determination? There is so very much at stake this year that sitting out an election is not an option. We must continue to vote for those who will uphold and support a woman's right to choose.
Several women in my family have had miscarriages. Two are very secretive about it, because it was so painful emotionally. The third was my mother, who had a miscarriage when I was about a year old. She talked about it on and off over the years. Clearly she was very traumatized by the incident. One of the others had an ectopic pregnancy. Should she be charged with murder because her life had to be saved by terminating the pregnancy?
Jewish law puts the mother's life first in every case. It does not consider a fetus a person with rights. This viewpoint is taken from the Jewish Bible (essentially what Christians call the "old" Testament). The punitive and authoritarian people who are driving the end of abortion rights are not concerned with the mother's life. They are not even concerned with the fetus's life, as they refuse to help mothers after a child is born. They claim this is "Christian," but I've never seen them reference a place in their Bible that proves that point.
This is not about a fetus's right to life. It's about an attempt to keep women "in their place," in the home. This is about trying to turn back the clock at least 50 years--I'd say 70--to make the country white and "Christian," despite the fact that freedom of religion is in the first amendment.
If we don't act now to protect women's rights, we will soon see other rights curtailed. This is not the America I love.
There you go again Mr Kristof. You write a well-thought-out logical treatise as to why this law is unjust, inappropriate or whatever. This is akin to a person about to be burnt at the stake seeking to convince the Executioner not to light the pyre because smoke isn't good for the environment. Those who proposed and who will Implement laws like this aren't interested in logic. They are the heirs and enforcers of a 2000 year old pagan-outgrowth cult that seeks to control all of us the name of their god and writings. You do not discuss, argue or attempt to reason with fanatics. You use the powers that were given to us by our democracy to weaken them, legislate them out of our lives and most important, educate a gullible public as to the dangers of those who purport to speak and act in the name of a higher power that only they can interpret.
How about sidestepping the seemingly insoluble disputes about exactly when a person comes into being and whether terminating a pregnancy at this or that point is murder by simply passing a federal law that says women and their health care providers cannot be prosecuted for terminating a pregnancy.
This would resolve the issue by establishing the principle that, before a baby is born, the personhood of the mother takes precedence.
The so-called pro-life folks can disagree all they want. Why should they call the shots?
And, speaking of shots, while we’re at it let’s pass laws requiring that guns, like cars, be registered and that gun users, like drivers, be licensed!
Women don’t get pregnant without men. Perhaps it would be a better idea to sterilize men (via vasectomy) and then when they’re old enough and mature enough to have a family they can get their sterility reversed.
At this rate, we can expect birth control to be outlawed as well, given that it exists under the same right to privacy that Alito claims does not exist. Funny, I don’t think the use of condoms has every been prosecuted, although women’s use of contraception has been. Wonder why that is….
It won't happen, for the same reason police arrest prostitutes and not the men who pay them.
This is genius!
It never works like that. Society is practical in this way so that, since the baby starts growing in the woman's stomach, it makes sense to have it be her responsibility, what to do with it. Or to ensure it doesn't get there in the first place, e.g., be careful and don't have sex with just anyone. Men are never shamed for being too promiscuous. Women are.
This law, and others like it, has nothing to do with caring about a fetus or a child. It's another attempt to control women. If men could get pregnant, no state legislature would concern itself with abortion.
You just so badly want to say that. Clinging to victimhood like that. Well, guess what, I may be a man but I have superior victim status to yours.
It’s not about murdering babies. That’s just a smokescreen. Until the fetus reaches the stage where it can maintain viability outside the body, it’s quite debatable if it is a human being or not.
What it is about is bodily autonomy. Consenting to sex does not mean consenting to pregnancy; and becoming pregnant does not mean consenting to carrying the pregnancy to term.
If human life is so paramount, so much so that society has the right to tell someone it has the right to prevail over their bodily autonomy in order to preserve life at all costs, then these “pro-lifers” better be the first ones to start lining up and handing over one of their kidneys, in order to sustain the 250,000 people per year in America who die from kidney disease.
You see… we wouldn’t ever tell a parent who had a child dying of kidney disease that they had to give up one of their kidneys to keep it alive, even though most people can live their entire life with one functioning kidney. That’s because we grant every person bodily autonomy (that wasn’t the case not so many years ago with forced sterilizations and injecting syphilis into black men). We’ve made it so everyone has the right to choose what they want to do with and who they choose to sustain, with their bodies. We don’t even remove this right from a person who’s just died by making mandatory organ donation a requirement! But the Christian Taliban in America have deemed that women along with people in the LGBTQ communities are “less than” and undeserving of these rights.
It’s not about a penis or vagina. It’s not about sex and as much as it’s shrilly shouted from the pulpits, it’s never been about the sanctity of life. It’s about a persons right to controlling their own bodily autonomy, or in this case removing that right from them.
This proposed law is reprehensible! It elevates Christianity to a state religion. Not all religions hold that life begins at contraception and many Americans are atheist or agnostic. I’d argue it’s unconstitutional for that reason, but with this SCOTUS, I’m sure they’d find a way to install radical Christianity as our official religion.
I am not happy to be treated as a vessel. Women’s rights and interest to control their own bodies and health needs to be considered in the equation. Louisiana believes a blastocyst has more rights than I do.
Legislators in Louisiana are barbarians. Most mammals do not attack the females of the species, but Republican "lawmakers" demonstrate malignant and unnatural behavior towards women.
It feels like the red states are now in an arms race to see which can become the most autocratic, judgmental, and anti-women. I don't get why this is a winning strategy. I really don't.
1. Ignorance. 2. Ignorant people believing they and only they know "G-d's will." 3. Power. Not necessarily in that order.
It sickens me that these laws are being championed by ministers, priests, and other supposedly "Christian" people. Again who will take care of, feed, clothe, & parent the babies that will be born to mothers that cant support themselves much less another mouth to feed. I think that all of these good "christian's" should concern themselves more with the children that were already born.
What about a woman that is pregnant and finds out that the baby she is carrying is grossly deformed with no chance of survival. So now the mother will either have a miscarriage at any time, give birth to a stillborn baby, or give birth to a baby with no kidneys, no arms or legs, and no chance of survival. That is cruel & unusual
Continuation: That is cruel & unusual for the woman, the husband, & the family. It is barbaric & horrific. Shame on anyone that would put anyone through that.
Your examples of how Christian conservatives are (NOT) "pro-life," are spot on. Another to add the list: many of these same "pro-lifers" refuse vaccines and masks, so what if they spread COVID and sicken or kill people -- it's their choice what they do with their body, and if they don't choose to take a vaccine or wear mask, no government can make them do it.
The law itself is clearly immoral, and one can only wonder about the so-called Christianity of the reverend who wrote the bill or the LA legislature. Clearly a Christian he is not.
I don’t think any of us has the right to decide that someone is Christian or not. But we certainly can disagree with their interpretation.
The Christian Taliban is coming for your wives and daughters……
In some countries I understand that women have been imprisoned for having a miscarriage. I am fearful that it might happen here. I and many of my friends have had miscarriages.
Yes, this has been an issue in El Salvador, which prosecutes women for getting abortions. A woman shows up at the hospital with a miscarriage, and a suspicious doctor accuses her of having had an abortion. This is a particular issue with medication abortion, in which women take misoprostol by itself or with mifepristone; this in effected creates a miscarriage that is indistinguishable from a natural miscarriage. So the police have been summoned to the hospital and try to browbeat the woman into confessing that she caused the miscarriage. It's barbaric.
Well, in my experience a law like this, similar to the war on drugs, is always enforced selectively, usually to compel obedience to the mafia. Same thing with all the rape hysteria. And why would I say that?
Oh, look at what I had on my computer all this time I was being targeted unfairly in so many ways. I forgot about it due to suffering memory repression syndrome.
Remember when Gloria Steinem said "it's been found that how women are treated in the home is part of how Genocide happens."
https://damiansep11.wordpress.com/2022/05/20/copying-and-pasting-emails-relevant-to-harvard-and-sep-11th/
"But Alito's opinion wouldn't ban abortions." No, but it would open that door and states that are controlled by religion zealots will rush through, like Louisiana is planning to. The bill even refers to god. Alito bemoans the impact of Roe but is OK with the pain and upheaval throwing out a 49-year precedent is going to bring? And he tries to distinguish Loving, Griswold and Obergefell as if these same zealots haven't already drawn a bead on them. If they think they're doing god's work with an abortion ban -- and they do -- no right that they don't support is safe.
Thank you, Nick, for this article! We live in scary times. I'm nearly 76, and this is the worst that I can remember. So many have lost faith in our government for multiple reasons. I know people who still think Oregon's voting system is corrupt, even though it's been working very well for over 20 years. And now this! Right now our Democratic Governor and pre-dominiately Democratic Legislature will continue to uphold our reproductive rights, but what happens if the citizens decide to vote for Republicans this time around? Will we women lose our right to self-determination? There is so very much at stake this year that sitting out an election is not an option. We must continue to vote for those who will uphold and support a woman's right to choose.
Several women in my family have had miscarriages. Two are very secretive about it, because it was so painful emotionally. The third was my mother, who had a miscarriage when I was about a year old. She talked about it on and off over the years. Clearly she was very traumatized by the incident. One of the others had an ectopic pregnancy. Should she be charged with murder because her life had to be saved by terminating the pregnancy?
Jewish law puts the mother's life first in every case. It does not consider a fetus a person with rights. This viewpoint is taken from the Jewish Bible (essentially what Christians call the "old" Testament). The punitive and authoritarian people who are driving the end of abortion rights are not concerned with the mother's life. They are not even concerned with the fetus's life, as they refuse to help mothers after a child is born. They claim this is "Christian," but I've never seen them reference a place in their Bible that proves that point.
This is not about a fetus's right to life. It's about an attempt to keep women "in their place," in the home. This is about trying to turn back the clock at least 50 years--I'd say 70--to make the country white and "Christian," despite the fact that freedom of religion is in the first amendment.
If we don't act now to protect women's rights, we will soon see other rights curtailed. This is not the America I love.
There you go again Mr Kristof. You write a well-thought-out logical treatise as to why this law is unjust, inappropriate or whatever. This is akin to a person about to be burnt at the stake seeking to convince the Executioner not to light the pyre because smoke isn't good for the environment. Those who proposed and who will Implement laws like this aren't interested in logic. They are the heirs and enforcers of a 2000 year old pagan-outgrowth cult that seeks to control all of us the name of their god and writings. You do not discuss, argue or attempt to reason with fanatics. You use the powers that were given to us by our democracy to weaken them, legislate them out of our lives and most important, educate a gullible public as to the dangers of those who purport to speak and act in the name of a higher power that only they can interpret.
How about sidestepping the seemingly insoluble disputes about exactly when a person comes into being and whether terminating a pregnancy at this or that point is murder by simply passing a federal law that says women and their health care providers cannot be prosecuted for terminating a pregnancy.
This would resolve the issue by establishing the principle that, before a baby is born, the personhood of the mother takes precedence.
The so-called pro-life folks can disagree all they want. Why should they call the shots?
And, speaking of shots, while we’re at it let’s pass laws requiring that guns, like cars, be registered and that gun users, like drivers, be licensed!