Rachel Maddow on Brett Kavanaugh’s threat to Roe V Wade (access to abortion in the USA)

[BettyDuMonde]

I think I’ve mentioned before that i’m a bit of a nerd for US politics?

I suspect being one step removed from it makes it emotionally easier for me to follow (because the current Austerity/Brexit/Racism/Sexism cross-party shitshow is beyond depressing).

Anyway, I’m big fan of MSNBC news commentator Rachel Maddow’s news story analysis (the network is unashamedly left-leaning, a caveat always worth mentioning) and this week, the big story in the US is Trump’s pick for Supreme Court Justice, Brett Kavanaugh.

It’s widely believed that if appointed (appointments are life long) and the right case opportunity comes up, Kavanaugh will overturn Roe V Wade - the case that made access to abortion a reality for American women (by restricting the reach of state and federal laws that previously denied it/made it very limited).

Rachel’s recent show is about a case on which Kavanaugh ruled, relating to a 17 year old young woman, held in immigration detention, and how his unreasonable interventions needlessly pushed her into the second trimester before she could access the procedure she was legally entitled to have.

It’s utterly revolting.

Rachel, however, is brilliant (yes, yes, I’m a Rachel M fangirl, I admit it):

m.youtube.com/watch?v=Qy0xA4OKS0g

Rachel Maddow is wonderful.

What a horrible horrible story.

I'm not an expert in US politics by any means but what I think is likely based on everything I've read is that a right leaning Supreme Court probably won't overturn Roe vs Wade as such but will try to move legalities/funding around abortion back to an individual state control. Probably okay in California but many other states not so much.

There is a risk that it would be overturned but I believe to do this a relevant case would have to make it through the lower courts and up to the Supreme level for this to happen. I don't think the SC has power to just randomly add or take away laws.

Happy to be corrected on any of this by those with a better understanding of US law.

I'm another Rachel Maddow fan girl.

Ova: right leaning Supreme Court probably won't overturn Roe vs Wade as such but will try to move legalities/funding around abortion back to an individual state control. Probably okay in California but many other states not so much.

If my understanding of American constitutional politics is right (and mine is also a bit flakey), this is precisely why Roe vs. Wade is under attack - because quite a lot of the back-door restrictions (hospital admitting privileges, ultrasounds a week apart, time limits etc.) have been tested in court and found to be unconstitutional. The US tries to devolve as much power as possible to individual states: federal wide laws, including case law like Roe vs. Wade, are used very sparingly - but when they do crop up, they have very far-reaching consequences on individual states. Which is precisely why the anti-abortion lobby want to overturn Roe vs. Wade.

I think you're absolutely right that it would take a case going all the way up from lower courts to overturn it, though.

Worth reminding ourselves that Trump's last pick for supreme court, Gorsuch, is not just anti-abortion but anti-contraception. He was the judge who ruled in favour of firms run by religious nuts with an objection to contraception being allowed to put exemptions in their company health care schemes so that contraception wasn't covered.

This is what I can't quite wrap my head around with many pro-lifers. It makes no sense to be anti contraception if you want to lessen the number of abortions happening. The only way that contradiction makes sense is if you view it through the prism of controlling women rather than caring about the unborn.

That's the prism to view in from ova! Freezing funding for Children's Health Insurance, for example, would suggest that the interests of children are not paramount priorities.

I am also a RM fangirl and I'm fascinated with US politics.

Ova - me to I can't wrap my head around the No abortion / No contraception thing... Then I don't understand teaching kids abstinence either....

I also really don't get the Rep no abortion but no support to look after the kids either. I also find the Pro Abortion rhetoric weird. Pro choice means pro abortion?!

Rep are for low govt involvement but they want a say in how many kids women have? odd

firms run by religious nuts with an objection to contraception being allowed to put exemptions in their company health care schemes so that contraception wasn't covered Devil's advocate: the US system is very different to ours. Under US law employers didn't have to offer medical insurance. Under the ACA ("Obamacare") they do if the company has more than 50 employees. The employer plan has to cover at least 60% of "typical health expenses". So you could have employer sponsored health insurance and still lose your house, basically. Now bearing in mind that prior to the ACA there was no legal requirement at all, and even now it is fairly limited, for some companies this seems like limiting religious expression. Again, very different to the UK, we are somewhere between the US and France in terms of secularism and the idea that a major fast food retailer like chick fil a being closed on a Sunday so employees can "worship if these choose" seems totally alien to us.
My point in short was that in compelling those who do not believe in contraception to pay for other people's the law was seen as unfair. I'm struggling to think of an analogy for here, perhaps the introduction of unlabelled halal meat as a default supply in prisons, schools and hospitals? Some people take great exception to paying for that through taxes. Make of it what you will.

WRT Roe v Wade, I hope it doesn't get overturned. There are already places with no providers at all (In 2014, 90% of U.S. counties had no clinics providing abortions.)

As an openly pro life bod on the board, I'll give my perspective. For a lot of pro lifers, the connection between contraception and abortion is pretty ingrained - they think one leads to the other, really. It's termed a 'contraceptive mentality', and the thinking goes that if you are using contraception and it fails, which is reasonably likely depending on the method, then you're already likely to more readily consider abortion.

It's a little more complicated in the US situation, because some people view the contraception angle through the financial window because of their very specific healthcare system and aversion to 'socialized medicine'. Others are slightly more nuanced about it from a conscience view, like the nuns who felt it would be wrong to provide contraception which directly goes against their faith - which is partially tied into a similar mindset as the first reason I mentioned (although Humanae Vitae is much more about contraception leading to women being devalued as objects than it is about leading to abortion).

For my own view, I'm believer in the complicated realities of a world where not everyone agrees and therefore compromises have to be made. Contraception is not a straightfoward topic - I know a number of women, for example, who have very sharply moved away from the contraceptive pill because they are unhappy with what it does to their bodies. I have been part of a movement that saw any attempt to not have children as a sin, and suffered the consequences physically, so I'm not going to say that contraception has no place for anyone.

But yes, on the broader point, it doesn't make an awful lot of sense to be anti-abortion and anti-contraception, practically speaking. I'm very much a realist, and while I am definitely anti-abortion (though I prefer pro life, because that references my motivation better), I recognize that in a world where not everyone agrees with me, or lives a life where an unplanned pregnancy is not a possibility, then contraception is a sensible middle ground. Again, as I always try to say when I talk about abortion in FWR, I am not trying to proselytise anyone, I merely bring it up because the question was asked about pro lifers thought processes and justifications, and as I'm here, I can answer.

If every "ProLife" person believed in excellent healthcare, food, education, child care, housing, transportation, (perhaps music lessons), and basic income being provided for every child on the planet, I might listen to their opinions with a bit more patience.

Oh, and also they would need to support a humane, well-funded prison system, with no death penalty and lots of highly qualified therapists and educators as well as highly trained guards (to take care of all the grown-ups who were born into families where they were not wanted).

Also they would have to be working tirelessly to clean up the horrific mess being made of our planet by its burgeoning human population.

Thanks Floral - I remember a blog post by an American woman who said having started out (from a right wing family, evangelical Christian background) as anti-abortion, she'd come round to being pro-choice as a damage limitation position. That you couldn't look at the stats from, say, the Gutermacher Institute and not realise that if you were really serious about reducing abortion, what you needed was freely accessible contraception, first rate sex education in schools and a decent welfare state. Because the countries with the lowest abortion rates were not those where abortion was illegal (which tended to go hand-in-hand with contraception being very hard to access), but countries in Western Europe with very liberal abortion laws - but very good social welfare and health services to go with that.

FWIW, I am pro life to my bones - I am anti-death penalty, and I believe in making a real positive difference to all human beings, which is why I volunteer my time to charity and do many small things I have no intention of boastfully listing, because I totally agree that a significant portion of the people who claim the pro life label do so with less than credible motivations.
It's really quite frustrating to say I'm pro-life and know that a lot of people will make assumptions about my beliefs and actions which are just wrong, based on my co-pro-lifers. But that's not really new ground for a Catholic to tread, so I shall just get on with it.

If every "ProLife" person...
The argument they would make back at you would be to ask why it is their responsibility to feed, clothe, educate, incarcerated, rehabilitate, transport and treat the offspring of others when feeding, housing and clothing children is a parent's responsibility.
I agree with contraception bring freely available, and either cheap or free. I think sex education needs to be stepped up, and public service adverts on telly shouldn't be ruled out. I also agree that having a welfare state is a positive for the country as a whole and that we don't want to see children suffer. I'm happy to put my money where my mouth is.
But I find the shifting of responsibility really worrying. If you have a child, that child is your responsibility, not mine. I'm happy to pay my taxes, I'm happy to continue to vote in favour of the welfare state, school funding, etc but the (theoretical) argument that I must pay for a child (otherwise it would be aborted!) is emotional blackmail.
I'm neither pro life nor pro choice, I believe abortion should be legal and easily accessible but I've seen the damage it has done to some women so I believe it's a necessary evil rather than a positive. The average Russian woman has several in her lifetime and any use it as the primary form of contraception. table in Russian, open in Chrome for Google Translate
Russian men prefer not to use condoms either link and Russia has one of the fastest growing HIV epidemics in the world.
My only point there is that abortion availability can go hand in hand with mysogyny and repression.

Turph, one only has to look at the situation around reproductive freedom in China to see that.

FloralBunting
Agreed. China has had some horrific policies. I'm Catholic too, but I still think abortion should remain legal. When I see people boasting of their abortions I wonder how damaged they are psychologically. I don't mean that in a patronising way. I don't know anyone who has had one who hasn't been profoundly affected by it. I think there should be some form of social services intervention for a second or subsequent abortion because it signifies a high risk of that woman being in an abusive relationship or taking sexual risks due to mental health or substance abuse issues.
Then again, that's not very "sex positive" is it?

I think abortion should be freely available and I think that contraception should be available affordably. These 2 things allow women to control their own lives. Taking contraceptives / having an abortion impacts no-one other than the 2 people involved therefore should not be up for debate by anyone else.

Pro Life? - good for you and feel free not to have one. However I don't think that you should have a say in the decision about someone else's life. Especially because women will have abortions whether they are safe /hygienic / illegal or not. I think in this day and age women shouldn't have to have a child if they don't want one and they should die to make that decision.

Catholic /Religious - great. More power to your religious belief but again don't impose it on other people.
I don't care if your a Jedi or a nun if your not comfortable dealing with contraception / abortion then don't do that job and don't try and influence others. People should know the facts and make their own mind up.
I think education is the key - both boys and girls.
I was appalled that a close friend (male) got a hookup pregnant (Not something I would do but he's and adult etc) and didn't have a clue about what was involved, how long it took / the process to get one etc.

I am shocked but not surprised at the Russian stats - Turph

NeedChoos, did you mean shouldn't die to make that decision? Sorry, I wasn't clear on the meaning of your sentence there, though the rest of the post is perfectly clear of course.

Fwiw, I have had abortions. A very long time ago, but they happened. The key to the impasse between the two positions of pro choice and pro life is in the names each positions choose for themselves.

The choice side majors on their best feature - the freedom to decide for yourself. I totally get that. The life side puts the emphasis on life - that of the mother, yes, but importantly, on the child too.

I've yet to find a workable meeting place in the middle - I respect and believe in bodily autonomy, but abortion is that horribly unique case in which a woman's body is not the only one in the equation. It's very frustrating to be in the place I am, ideologically speaking.

I've yet to find a workable meeting place in the middle - I respect and believe in bodily autonomy, but abortion is that horribly unique case in which a woman's body is not the only one in the equation. It's very frustrating to be in the place I am, ideologically speaking.
Agreed, it's not a black or white issue.

Regarding contraception objectors here in the US, many believe that contraception IS abortion. They don't know or believe how the various methods work and so believe that contraceptives actually cause abortions. And people here like to say they are against socialized medicine but will lose their minds if you say you want to slash Medicare (insurance through the state for older Americans).

The only way that contradiction makes sense is if you view it through the prism of controlling women rather than caring about the unborn.

Pretty much the crux of it.

Now bearing in mind that prior to the ACA there was no legal requirement at all, and even now it is fairly limited, for some companies this seems like limiting religious expression. Again, very different to the UK, we are somewhere between the US and France in terms of secularism and the idea that a major fast food retailer like chick fil a being closed on a Sunday so employees can "worship if these choose" seems totally alien to us

interesting you see it that way, I'd see as the opposite. Prior to the tea party and Trump, things like open prayer in a publicly funded school would have been enough for me to reaching for the pearls and smelling salts but I've had to accept it in England as most of the schools near me are faith based and all demand "RE" with a Christian bent.

The difference to me is that businesses in America are practically seen as people, and people (same as in this country) are allowed to worship as they wish.

Still falls back to the fact that no one minds funding viagra for men who are too old to be fathers with wives who are old to get pregnant.
Sex is only bad when a woman wants it.

Agreed. China has had some horrific policies. I'm Catholic too, but I still think abortion should remain legal. When I see people boasting of their abortions I wonder how damaged they are psychologically. I don't mean that in a patronising way. I don't know anyone who has had one who hasn't been profoundly affected by it. I think there should be some form of social services intervention for a second or subsequent abortion because it signifies a high risk of that woman being in an abusive relationship or taking sexual risks due to mental health or substance abuse issues.

Any sex risks a pregnancy a highly fertile woman who gets pregnant during ovulation every time is highly likely to have two accidental pregnancies. Over the course of 30 fertile years It's very possible.

Most people I know will admit that not every single one of their children was planned exactly, would you think they should have social service intervention if they had two accidents?

I had an abortion and I'd take a very dim view to social service being called if I got pregnant again, my dh has had the snip now but it's not 100% and I'd be fucked if that was seen as my fault.

Also, I am not profoundly affected by it. I was profoundly pissed off at my husband that he had not had the vasectomy when I asked and that I had to have a procedure after years of pregnancy and birth control when it was his turn. so I was annoyed at the situation but the actual abortion was fine and I'd have another if I ever got pregnant without so much as a second though especially as I know how little it did affect me. I don't think it makes me damaged, I think the fear and shame around abortions can damage women.

businesses in America are practically seen as people
Legally seen as people too, strangely link

Tbh, while everyone's story is important - those with regret, and those without - I rarely think they add much to the basic issue. Often abortion regret is about a poorly handled situation rather than the fact of the abortion itself.

I'd take a very dim view to social service being called I get that, maybe it was a half formed though that shouldn't have been typed. My personal experience is that women I know who have had abortions have been affected before, during or after. YMMV. I still think multiple abortions are a risk factor for an abusive relationship. <a class="break-all" href="https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1576/toag.11.3.163.27500&ved=2ahUKEwiXyNSxv6ndAhUHDcAKHZRBDG4QFjAAegQIBhAB&usg=AOvVaw1DTwgGxtXnZGQAOH7Zcyeq" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">link