In all the discussions of abortion laws no one ever mentions the male's consequences for getting someone pregnant. Females are punished for having sex and "getting pregnant"... and now will be forced to give birth - effectively ending their school, work, career, family &/or life plans, and mental health - if this was something they did not want to do for good reason. Yet men and boys go scott free - walk away with no responsibility (who is going to enforce child support from a 17 year old deadbeat dad?) Why isn't there a law that requires any male who gets a female pregnant to quit school or give up any other plans so that they can work to support that unwanted baby until the child turns 18?... The situation for forced, unwanted pregnancy and birth should be just as harsh and miserable for the "father." If a couple has sex that results in pregnancy shouldn't the responsibility -- and the sacrifices needed -- be equally shared?
Or is patriarchy just too ingrained in America for people to even be discussing this as a necessary, fair, logical next step in the laws around pregnancy and birth? Of course a law like this will never happen here because we are so righteous about degrading and punishing women.
I don't even feel at this time that protesting in the streets is the right action to take for women. It would be just another way for society (men) to disrespect and humiliate and dismiss us, and deride our rights and our speaking our opinions as irrelevant.
Underlying the overturn of Roe is the desire to control women, to keep them βin their place;β therefore, improved sex education and access to birth control is not attractive because it would not serve this goal.
Clearly, the goal of SCOTUS is not preserving life, as is evidenced by the loosening of gun restrictions this week.
Thatβs true. It isnβt about saving babies, helping families, helping women. Itβs about control and repression. But Iβm going to post this anyway because it might get to the people who are still naive and foolish enough to believe this ruling is about saving babies.
No offense intended but I donβt recognize your description of pro-lifers. I suspect you have never been a biblical literalist. I was. For me and my hundreds of relatives and fellow church members, this was 100% about our 2000 year old religious belief that life begins at conception. I read Tom Paine and left Christianity behind. They didnβt. Itβs all about stopping baby murder. Weβd listen to plays on tape where mothers who had abortions would meet the aborted children in heaven some day and weβd sob as we listened to them reunite.
Glad that you were able to consider views outside of the one you were raised with. And as you have probably heard, my 3500 year old religious belief says that human life begins with the first breath. Prior to that, the well being of the mother is paramount. Too many Americans and six members of the court believe in freedom for their religion only.
Like several others here, I was once a part of the fundamentalist Christian movement that is now celebrating this long-sought destruction of Roe - and like them, I have friends and family who remain firmly embedded in that camp. These loved ones refer to me as "pro-abortion," even though I despise the procedure and support all the efforts that you have pointed out are actually effective in reducing abortions.
But the same points bear repeating: the anti-Roe camp, for the most part, operates with such religious fervor and conviction that there is no room for logic or debate - only absolutism. This faith in absolutes is the core component of fundamentalism; there is no wiggle room in things like the virgin birth or the resurrection, and certainly no room to question the notion of salvation, eternal life, or heaven and hell. When your entire belief system is built on a foundation of such absolutes, and questions like abortion and related medical procedures are relegated to the mysterious ether of "God's will" and not logic & reason, there is simply nowhere else to go. "Abortion is murder," "Pro-choice is pro-abortion," and "Thou shalt not kill" leave no room for any discussion such as this one.
This is one reason America's "founding fathers" fought so strenuously to avoid the pitfalls of creating a theocracy: our nation was founded during the age of enlightenment, when citizens began to understand the fundamental inequality and unfairness of the historical concept of a divinely inspired ruler. Let's not forget that soon after the founding of our nation, Europeans witnessed the bloody, cruel French Revolution, which wiped out once and for all the notion of divinely inspired monarchs and replaced them with the newly emerging concept of governmental power and legitimacy originating from the will of the people rather than something divinely imposed from above.
Yesterday's Court ruling was inspired by the same foundation that ancient Egypt's pharaohs and Louis XIV used to justify their authority. The Republican Party has not just taken back a half century of established rights in our nation, but has reached back millennia for justification to do so.
Youβre screaming into the wind. Anti-abortionists are conservative Christians; they donβt want comprehensive sex education or better access to contraceptives because they believe those things encourage sex outside of marriage, which God apparently hates. As a former believer who once wholeheartedly supported this dogma and who has many relatives who still do, believe me when I write that this is a very calculated, surreptitious religious war. These people will not stop until there is a federal ban on all abortion, gay marriage, and prayer is re-instituted in public schools.
Thanks for your comment, but I disagree with the idea that no one can be won over or that it's pointless to make arguments. Opinion polls suggest about 20 percent of the public is fervently anti-abortion in all circumstances, and I'm not going to change those minds. But there's a much larger share of the population that is uncomfortable with abortion but also uncomfortable with regulating it too much. The "pro-life" community very effectively targeted this population with discussion of extreme cases such as "abortion as birth control" or the largely illusory term "partial-birth abortion." The pro-choice response should be to talk about cases like the one I described in Poland, where a ban on abortion effectively killed a woman. And our side has to be effective in communicating, which means talking about "a woman's right to choose" rather than liberal-speak like "a person-with-a-uterus's right to choose."
I know almost exactly what the situation in Poland was except at the time an abortion was an option to my wife at the time. I don't believe that the vast majority of women that have had or consider having an abortion take doing so cavalierly. In the most cases its a heartbreaking thing for whatever the reason is. It's again "what is the lesser of 2 evils" so when I hear people talking about using abortion as a method of birth control I want to scream. Of course lets not forget that Mr Empathy aka Clarence Thomas talked about next having contraceptives in their sights. I guess we have to do what Senator Warren advised and "Not Lose Hope" but that's very difficult now considering what the political landscape looks like today.
The very same Republicans who extol access to guns which are now killing more children than car crashes are now rushing to block abortion altogether. This is not about βchoosing lifeβ at all. It is about controlling women.
Excellent piece. Thank you Nicholas. But... a good number of pro-lifers don't believe in birth control, especially the conservative/traditional Catholics. Improving contraception access is a non starter for this highly religious group. Still - there is much that could be done to reduce the number of abortions without making it illegal. Let's start with access to affordable health care, child tax credits and paid parental leave. It's baffling that many of the "pro-life" red states refused the ACA's medicaid expansion. How did our thinking get so twisted about basic issues?
Johanna, yes, you're right that there's resistance in some conservative quarters to both comprehensive sex education and to contraception. In particular, there's hostility to IUDs because in some cases they work not just by preventing fertilization but also by preventing implantation of a fertilized egg (thus supposedly "killing" a zygote). But I've had lots of conversations along these lines with social conservatives, and there's still room to make some progress. Implants don't raise the issues that IUDs do, and they are highly effective birth control. And conservatives are troubled by high rates of teen pregnancy in red states, so I've found it important to push back at their fear that contraception promotes promiscuity. My line is that "contraceptives no more cause sex than umbrellas causes rain"; that usually gets a laugh and a reluctant nod.
I have many, many friends who are anti-abortion. They call themselves βpro-life.οΏΌβ Itβs not about controlling women. It is because they genuinely believe that even a zygote is a human being and that abortion at any phase of development is murder.
We talk about the οΏΌmillions of poor in this country. They talk about the millions βmurderedβ every year. The two sides talk right past each other.
What we need is to stop the ad hominem attacks and begin talking. Both sides agree that they want to reduce unwanted pregnancies. οΏΌLet both sides work together to do thatοΏΌ. Letβs work to improve sex education. οΏΌLetβs work to improve access to birth control. If we share a common goal, then wοΏΌe can find a common ground. οΏΌ
Letβs offer family planning through classes at our local hospitals & community centers, social workers trained in family planningοΏΌ who can counsel when they visit their οΏΌwelfare recipients, and even subsidized birth control to those below the poverty level.οΏΌοΏΌ
And on a much smaller note, letβs work to reduce rape in this country, even if just buy a littleοΏΌ. LetβsοΏΌ publish in local newspapers and in social media the names of johns picked up for sex with a minor; in the same vein, οΏΌletβs publish οΏΌοΏΌthe names of those convicted of incest and rapeοΏΌ. If states are going to punish children and women οΏΌby forcing them to carry the children of their rapists to full-term, it is but an infinitesimalοΏΌ penalty for these menβs crime. οΏΌοΏΌ
Agree. Congress should also bring forth, debate, and in the light of day vote on a bill to ensure privacy of women's reproductive health care decisions, including the right to terminate a first-trimester pregnancy as well as any trimester to save her own life or in case of rape incest, or incompatibility with life outside her womb. Reducing unwanted pregnancies is not the only issue here, and all women need protection of this essential privacy of her body.
I wonder if introducing such a privacy bill might ward off the intrusion that will likely result from the overturning of R v W, such as the horrid requirement in Poland that women report their pregnancies.
Mr. Kristof, I would be fascinated to hear your take on the idea that liberals reason through consequentialism ("If you want fewer abortions, do X, Y, and Z. If you ban abortion, that will only make A, B, and C happen," as you've done here.) while conservatives reason through a form of virtue ethics heavily influenced by Calvinism. ("We use laws to create a system that affirms virtue. Also, you're already fated to be good or bad and your actions only confirm this truth.")
So liberals keep doing something that conservatives think looks corrupt: "By creating a society in which people don't have to be virtuous to be successful, you're CHEATING! If people don't have to be hardworking and sexually abstemious to survive, everyone will be corrupted into a lazy slut!" (Similar to the idea that people have to believe in God and the afterlife to not commit sins left and right.)
Conservatives keep doing something that, to liberal reasoning, looks like lying: "You say you want fewer abortions. But your actions don't produce fewer abortions. They DO produce more babies and less education ...you must be LYING! You must REALLY want lots of uneducated young people for cheap labor!! But I've figured you out, ha ha ha!"
This is important if we are to begin to actually communicate effectively with people we don't agree with. The Calvinist part ("You're already fated to be good or bad") is far from universal, but I hear the first part of your statement ("We use laws to create a system that affirms virtue") all the time. In this way of thinking, it doesn't matter the effect of the law, it really doesn't. "If abortion is murder, well, we outlaw murder whether that reduces the murder rate or not." There is also, always, the language of innocence and guilt, ie virtue. The talk is always about the innocent unborn child -- suggesting that the woman who's pregnant is, at best, a little less innocent. I get angry just writing these statements, but understanding them is important. Talking to conservatives as if they think like liberals is a patently failed strategy.
"Talking to conservatives as if they think like liberals is a patently failed strategy." Yes, yes, and more YES. In our defense, conservatives often do say, "What I want is for there to BE no abortions" (the consequence) when it would be more accurate for them to say, "I would like there to be no abortions but what I actually want is for all our instututions to condemn it and not endorse it, regardless of what actually happens." Almost all the liberal response is based on what would actually happen, and conservatives usually don't have that at the top of their list.
Iβd like to see men entering this conversation. Iβm sure there are husbands, fathers, boyfriends, etc., who feel the same way their womenfolk do. Thereβre many reasons not to go through with a pregnancy: some of them are the affordability of raising children, inherited genetic defects, disease and many other reasons which men and women share. The men have as big a role in this issue as women do and I wish they would speak up to support their women and add their voices to the reasons that Roe v. Wade should not be scrapped.
And (a BIG AND) where is the companion ruling/legislation to pro-lifersβ determination to insert their beliefs and governmental interference into peoplesβ lives by forcing women to give birth β¦ how are these freedom deniers planning to care for and support the thousands (or millions) of unwanted or severely disabled babies once they are born via coercion?
Iβm a man; in my 60βs and my mom raised a feminist. Iβm pro-choice and very angry and announced this to my staff today who all happen to be women. Iβve been to many Womensβ Marches. I support pro-choice women 100%!
I wouldn't say AS big a role, but this does affect cis men. The last time abortion was illegal nationwide was before DNA tests were something you could get done at the mall and you could always claim the baby wasn't yours. How many men don't realize the thousands in child support they're NOT paying because she decided to abort? It's not just women who'll be kept poor and less educated.
There are some choices that are so intimate and private, so integral to a person's being, that they cannot be practically imposed by law. We cannot compel anyone to give blood or donate a kidney. The person in the best position to make the choice about an abortion is the woman. βViabilityβ is a poor standard for judging abortion. When a woman chooses an abortion, it is not a foetus (or that βpotential lifeβ) that is in question: the choice terminates not only a womanβs pregnancy, but carrying the baby to term, the birth of a baby and the care of that child into adulthood and beyond. It's not a choice that can be imposed on anyone. If you don't like abortions, your best bet is to influence the choice, not attempt to compel the behavior.
The reason the free-exercise of religion is in the same amendment as the free speech and assembly amendment is that religion is thought to be a question of faith or belief. If you do not believe in contraception or abortion, you are free to influence the choice, by exercising your free speech rights. You are free to "save" the sinners and bring them into your belief (and invite them to assemble with you in your place of worship). You are free to believe in the sentence of death for apostasy, but don't try to carry out that sentence under our civil laws. Our civil laws against human sacrifice or animal cruelty may inhibit your free exercise of your religion, but you may continue to believe in those practices and to convince others.
What about a pregnant woman diagnosed with cancer? I assume the fetus gets the preferential treatment and the woman can't get chemo until the baby is born.
That is not a hypothetical scenario: there have been real-life cases. Google Sheila Hodgers to see what happens to a pregnant woman with cancer in a country where abortion is illegal.
I've asked this question of anyi abortion folks and have not received an answer. Their true goal is imposing a twisted Christian version of Shiria law. Look at what Thomas said In his concurring opinion. I hope this wakes people up to the dangers we face if we allow Republicans to take over. Protect liberty, vote for Democrats.
Jon Krakauerβs book βUnder the Banner of Heavenβ suggested the U.S. population would turn more conservative due to the tendency of conservative families to produce more children. πIβve aged out of the relevance of the abortion issue, but have long worried about the use of single-issue politics by both political parties. I hope the Democrats can come up with a message that is more comprehensive, because the mendacity of the current Republican party is appalling.
I wish President Biden would use this moment to issue a public challenge to conservatives. "The harsh truth is that for decades, the same people who fought to overturn Roe v Wade have also fought to make unplanned pregnancy as frequent and terrifying as humanly possibly. Today, that must stop. I invite conservative legislators to join us in making unplanned pregnancy LESS frequent (through universal access to effective contraception, and universal access to information about the same) and LESS terrifying (through policies that genuinely support American families in their need for housing, health care, fair labor laws, and paid family leave." Maybe futile -- but maybe, maybe, maybe a tiny bit not??
In all the discussions of abortion laws no one ever mentions the male's consequences for getting someone pregnant. Females are punished for having sex and "getting pregnant"... and now will be forced to give birth - effectively ending their school, work, career, family &/or life plans, and mental health - if this was something they did not want to do for good reason. Yet men and boys go scott free - walk away with no responsibility (who is going to enforce child support from a 17 year old deadbeat dad?) Why isn't there a law that requires any male who gets a female pregnant to quit school or give up any other plans so that they can work to support that unwanted baby until the child turns 18?... The situation for forced, unwanted pregnancy and birth should be just as harsh and miserable for the "father." If a couple has sex that results in pregnancy shouldn't the responsibility -- and the sacrifices needed -- be equally shared?
Or is patriarchy just too ingrained in America for people to even be discussing this as a necessary, fair, logical next step in the laws around pregnancy and birth? Of course a law like this will never happen here because we are so righteous about degrading and punishing women.
I don't even feel at this time that protesting in the streets is the right action to take for women. It would be just another way for society (men) to disrespect and humiliate and dismiss us, and deride our rights and our speaking our opinions as irrelevant.
Underlying the overturn of Roe is the desire to control women, to keep them βin their place;β therefore, improved sex education and access to birth control is not attractive because it would not serve this goal.
Clearly, the goal of SCOTUS is not preserving life, as is evidenced by the loosening of gun restrictions this week.
Thatβs true. It isnβt about saving babies, helping families, helping women. Itβs about control and repression. But Iβm going to post this anyway because it might get to the people who are still naive and foolish enough to believe this ruling is about saving babies.
No offense intended but I donβt recognize your description of pro-lifers. I suspect you have never been a biblical literalist. I was. For me and my hundreds of relatives and fellow church members, this was 100% about our 2000 year old religious belief that life begins at conception. I read Tom Paine and left Christianity behind. They didnβt. Itβs all about stopping baby murder. Weβd listen to plays on tape where mothers who had abortions would meet the aborted children in heaven some day and weβd sob as we listened to them reunite.
Glad that you were able to consider views outside of the one you were raised with. And as you have probably heard, my 3500 year old religious belief says that human life begins with the first breath. Prior to that, the well being of the mother is paramount. Too many Americans and six members of the court believe in freedom for their religion only.
Guns now have more protection than women.
Like several others here, I was once a part of the fundamentalist Christian movement that is now celebrating this long-sought destruction of Roe - and like them, I have friends and family who remain firmly embedded in that camp. These loved ones refer to me as "pro-abortion," even though I despise the procedure and support all the efforts that you have pointed out are actually effective in reducing abortions.
But the same points bear repeating: the anti-Roe camp, for the most part, operates with such religious fervor and conviction that there is no room for logic or debate - only absolutism. This faith in absolutes is the core component of fundamentalism; there is no wiggle room in things like the virgin birth or the resurrection, and certainly no room to question the notion of salvation, eternal life, or heaven and hell. When your entire belief system is built on a foundation of such absolutes, and questions like abortion and related medical procedures are relegated to the mysterious ether of "God's will" and not logic & reason, there is simply nowhere else to go. "Abortion is murder," "Pro-choice is pro-abortion," and "Thou shalt not kill" leave no room for any discussion such as this one.
This is one reason America's "founding fathers" fought so strenuously to avoid the pitfalls of creating a theocracy: our nation was founded during the age of enlightenment, when citizens began to understand the fundamental inequality and unfairness of the historical concept of a divinely inspired ruler. Let's not forget that soon after the founding of our nation, Europeans witnessed the bloody, cruel French Revolution, which wiped out once and for all the notion of divinely inspired monarchs and replaced them with the newly emerging concept of governmental power and legitimacy originating from the will of the people rather than something divinely imposed from above.
Yesterday's Court ruling was inspired by the same foundation that ancient Egypt's pharaohs and Louis XIV used to justify their authority. The Republican Party has not just taken back a half century of established rights in our nation, but has reached back millennia for justification to do so.
Youβre screaming into the wind. Anti-abortionists are conservative Christians; they donβt want comprehensive sex education or better access to contraceptives because they believe those things encourage sex outside of marriage, which God apparently hates. As a former believer who once wholeheartedly supported this dogma and who has many relatives who still do, believe me when I write that this is a very calculated, surreptitious religious war. These people will not stop until there is a federal ban on all abortion, gay marriage, and prayer is re-instituted in public schools.
Thanks for your comment, but I disagree with the idea that no one can be won over or that it's pointless to make arguments. Opinion polls suggest about 20 percent of the public is fervently anti-abortion in all circumstances, and I'm not going to change those minds. But there's a much larger share of the population that is uncomfortable with abortion but also uncomfortable with regulating it too much. The "pro-life" community very effectively targeted this population with discussion of extreme cases such as "abortion as birth control" or the largely illusory term "partial-birth abortion." The pro-choice response should be to talk about cases like the one I described in Poland, where a ban on abortion effectively killed a woman. And our side has to be effective in communicating, which means talking about "a woman's right to choose" rather than liberal-speak like "a person-with-a-uterus's right to choose."
I know almost exactly what the situation in Poland was except at the time an abortion was an option to my wife at the time. I don't believe that the vast majority of women that have had or consider having an abortion take doing so cavalierly. In the most cases its a heartbreaking thing for whatever the reason is. It's again "what is the lesser of 2 evils" so when I hear people talking about using abortion as a method of birth control I want to scream. Of course lets not forget that Mr Empathy aka Clarence Thomas talked about next having contraceptives in their sights. I guess we have to do what Senator Warren advised and "Not Lose Hope" but that's very difficult now considering what the political landscape looks like today.
I hope you're right! We must keep talking about the issue with the hope that we can pursuade enough people to change their views and their votes.
The very same Republicans who extol access to guns which are now killing more children than car crashes are now rushing to block abortion altogether. This is not about βchoosing lifeβ at all. It is about controlling women.
Not just killing more children than car crashes. Guns are the leading cause of death in America for children and teens, full stop.
Excellent piece. Thank you Nicholas. But... a good number of pro-lifers don't believe in birth control, especially the conservative/traditional Catholics. Improving contraception access is a non starter for this highly religious group. Still - there is much that could be done to reduce the number of abortions without making it illegal. Let's start with access to affordable health care, child tax credits and paid parental leave. It's baffling that many of the "pro-life" red states refused the ACA's medicaid expansion. How did our thinking get so twisted about basic issues?
Johanna, yes, you're right that there's resistance in some conservative quarters to both comprehensive sex education and to contraception. In particular, there's hostility to IUDs because in some cases they work not just by preventing fertilization but also by preventing implantation of a fertilized egg (thus supposedly "killing" a zygote). But I've had lots of conversations along these lines with social conservatives, and there's still room to make some progress. Implants don't raise the issues that IUDs do, and they are highly effective birth control. And conservatives are troubled by high rates of teen pregnancy in red states, so I've found it important to push back at their fear that contraception promotes promiscuity. My line is that "contraceptives no more cause sex than umbrellas causes rain"; that usually gets a laugh and a reluctant nod.
I have many, many friends who are anti-abortion. They call themselves βpro-life.οΏΌβ Itβs not about controlling women. It is because they genuinely believe that even a zygote is a human being and that abortion at any phase of development is murder.
We talk about the οΏΌmillions of poor in this country. They talk about the millions βmurderedβ every year. The two sides talk right past each other.
What we need is to stop the ad hominem attacks and begin talking. Both sides agree that they want to reduce unwanted pregnancies. οΏΌLet both sides work together to do thatοΏΌ. Letβs work to improve sex education. οΏΌLetβs work to improve access to birth control. If we share a common goal, then wοΏΌe can find a common ground. οΏΌ
Letβs offer family planning through classes at our local hospitals & community centers, social workers trained in family planningοΏΌ who can counsel when they visit their οΏΌwelfare recipients, and even subsidized birth control to those below the poverty level.οΏΌοΏΌ
And on a much smaller note, letβs work to reduce rape in this country, even if just buy a littleοΏΌ. LetβsοΏΌ publish in local newspapers and in social media the names of johns picked up for sex with a minor; in the same vein, οΏΌletβs publish οΏΌοΏΌthe names of those convicted of incest and rapeοΏΌ. If states are going to punish children and women οΏΌby forcing them to carry the children of their rapists to full-term, it is but an infinitesimalοΏΌ penalty for these menβs crime. οΏΌοΏΌ
Agree. Congress should also bring forth, debate, and in the light of day vote on a bill to ensure privacy of women's reproductive health care decisions, including the right to terminate a first-trimester pregnancy as well as any trimester to save her own life or in case of rape incest, or incompatibility with life outside her womb. Reducing unwanted pregnancies is not the only issue here, and all women need protection of this essential privacy of her body.
I wonder if introducing such a privacy bill might ward off the intrusion that will likely result from the overturning of R v W, such as the horrid requirement in Poland that women report their pregnancies.
Mr. Kristof, I would be fascinated to hear your take on the idea that liberals reason through consequentialism ("If you want fewer abortions, do X, Y, and Z. If you ban abortion, that will only make A, B, and C happen," as you've done here.) while conservatives reason through a form of virtue ethics heavily influenced by Calvinism. ("We use laws to create a system that affirms virtue. Also, you're already fated to be good or bad and your actions only confirm this truth.")
So liberals keep doing something that conservatives think looks corrupt: "By creating a society in which people don't have to be virtuous to be successful, you're CHEATING! If people don't have to be hardworking and sexually abstemious to survive, everyone will be corrupted into a lazy slut!" (Similar to the idea that people have to believe in God and the afterlife to not commit sins left and right.)
Conservatives keep doing something that, to liberal reasoning, looks like lying: "You say you want fewer abortions. But your actions don't produce fewer abortions. They DO produce more babies and less education ...you must be LYING! You must REALLY want lots of uneducated young people for cheap labor!! But I've figured you out, ha ha ha!"
This is important if we are to begin to actually communicate effectively with people we don't agree with. The Calvinist part ("You're already fated to be good or bad") is far from universal, but I hear the first part of your statement ("We use laws to create a system that affirms virtue") all the time. In this way of thinking, it doesn't matter the effect of the law, it really doesn't. "If abortion is murder, well, we outlaw murder whether that reduces the murder rate or not." There is also, always, the language of innocence and guilt, ie virtue. The talk is always about the innocent unborn child -- suggesting that the woman who's pregnant is, at best, a little less innocent. I get angry just writing these statements, but understanding them is important. Talking to conservatives as if they think like liberals is a patently failed strategy.
"Talking to conservatives as if they think like liberals is a patently failed strategy." Yes, yes, and more YES. In our defense, conservatives often do say, "What I want is for there to BE no abortions" (the consequence) when it would be more accurate for them to say, "I would like there to be no abortions but what I actually want is for all our instututions to condemn it and not endorse it, regardless of what actually happens." Almost all the liberal response is based on what would actually happen, and conservatives usually don't have that at the top of their list.
Iβd like to see men entering this conversation. Iβm sure there are husbands, fathers, boyfriends, etc., who feel the same way their womenfolk do. Thereβre many reasons not to go through with a pregnancy: some of them are the affordability of raising children, inherited genetic defects, disease and many other reasons which men and women share. The men have as big a role in this issue as women do and I wish they would speak up to support their women and add their voices to the reasons that Roe v. Wade should not be scrapped.
And (a BIG AND) where is the companion ruling/legislation to pro-lifersβ determination to insert their beliefs and governmental interference into peoplesβ lives by forcing women to give birth β¦ how are these freedom deniers planning to care for and support the thousands (or millions) of unwanted or severely disabled babies once they are born via coercion?
Iβm a man; in my 60βs and my mom raised a feminist. Iβm pro-choice and very angry and announced this to my staff today who all happen to be women. Iβve been to many Womensβ Marches. I support pro-choice women 100%!
I wouldn't say AS big a role, but this does affect cis men. The last time abortion was illegal nationwide was before DNA tests were something you could get done at the mall and you could always claim the baby wasn't yours. How many men don't realize the thousands in child support they're NOT paying because she decided to abort? It's not just women who'll be kept poor and less educated.
Not just cis men, though. Lots of men, whether straight or gay, have sisters, mothers, good female friends and relatives for whom they care.
There are some choices that are so intimate and private, so integral to a person's being, that they cannot be practically imposed by law. We cannot compel anyone to give blood or donate a kidney. The person in the best position to make the choice about an abortion is the woman. βViabilityβ is a poor standard for judging abortion. When a woman chooses an abortion, it is not a foetus (or that βpotential lifeβ) that is in question: the choice terminates not only a womanβs pregnancy, but carrying the baby to term, the birth of a baby and the care of that child into adulthood and beyond. It's not a choice that can be imposed on anyone. If you don't like abortions, your best bet is to influence the choice, not attempt to compel the behavior.
The reason the free-exercise of religion is in the same amendment as the free speech and assembly amendment is that religion is thought to be a question of faith or belief. If you do not believe in contraception or abortion, you are free to influence the choice, by exercising your free speech rights. You are free to "save" the sinners and bring them into your belief (and invite them to assemble with you in your place of worship). You are free to believe in the sentence of death for apostasy, but don't try to carry out that sentence under our civil laws. Our civil laws against human sacrifice or animal cruelty may inhibit your free exercise of your religion, but you may continue to believe in those practices and to convince others.
What about a pregnant woman diagnosed with cancer? I assume the fetus gets the preferential treatment and the woman can't get chemo until the baby is born.
That is not a hypothetical scenario: there have been real-life cases. Google Sheila Hodgers to see what happens to a pregnant woman with cancer in a country where abortion is illegal.
I've asked this question of anyi abortion folks and have not received an answer. Their true goal is imposing a twisted Christian version of Shiria law. Look at what Thomas said In his concurring opinion. I hope this wakes people up to the dangers we face if we allow Republicans to take over. Protect liberty, vote for Democrats.
As ever, a compassionate plea for sanity and working together to solve problems, improve lives, and uplift our humanity.
Izabela's story is tragic beyond words. I feel physically ill imagining it and the insanity.
Jon Krakauerβs book βUnder the Banner of Heavenβ suggested the U.S. population would turn more conservative due to the tendency of conservative families to produce more children. πIβve aged out of the relevance of the abortion issue, but have long worried about the use of single-issue politics by both political parties. I hope the Democrats can come up with a message that is more comprehensive, because the mendacity of the current Republican party is appalling.
I wish President Biden would use this moment to issue a public challenge to conservatives. "The harsh truth is that for decades, the same people who fought to overturn Roe v Wade have also fought to make unplanned pregnancy as frequent and terrifying as humanly possibly. Today, that must stop. I invite conservative legislators to join us in making unplanned pregnancy LESS frequent (through universal access to effective contraception, and universal access to information about the same) and LESS terrifying (through policies that genuinely support American families in their need for housing, health care, fair labor laws, and paid family leave." Maybe futile -- but maybe, maybe, maybe a tiny bit not??