Woman arrested in Texas on murder for ‘illegal abortion’

[landOFconfusion]

Saw this on the news wires. Thought it was more important than some of the topics that are usually posted here.

STARR COUNTY, Texas (ValleyCentral) — A woman has been charged with murder after authorities say she performed a “self-induced abortion.”

www.tpr.org/news/2022-04-08/texas-woman-charged-with-murder-for-self-induced-abortion

I have been told that the county jail and the District Attorney's office have disconnected their phone lines, due to so many people calling and complaining (I assume).

@tabbycatstripy

Of course it’s important. But to come on a UK feminist board and imply there is something wrong with posters focusing more on something that presents an issue in their own country than on something happening thousands of miles away is wrong. I care about the women of Texas like I care about the women of Afghanistan: I do care, but I can’t lobby their politicians or march with them.

However, abortion is not a current controversy in the UK political system. The right to safe legal abortion is not under threat here and there’s little reason to believe it will come under threat.

It stands to reason it will receive less attention than the issues presented by gender ideology.

Much as I agree OP should have a wee think about steaming into The Naughty Corner & giving out to us all for using it for its intended purpose: Northern Ireland is still part of the UK.

The February High Court ruling discussed in this briefing paper was about 7 weeks before the absolute deadline set in July 2021 by the Northern Ireland Secretary for the DOH, Health Minister, HSC, and First & Deputy First Ministers, for commissioning & making abortion services available in NI. Even with that ruling at this point it still feels like it’s anybody’s guess as to when the end of the time - & suffering - of travelling women (& girls) is to be, with this shuffling in, not stepping in by Brandon Lewis - certainly no sign of the stepping up* so badly needed.

• Do wonder slightly if Stormont’s politicians are/have been trying to push it because they thought Westminster wouldn’t want to risk doing anything that looked like Direct Rule. Even during the absolute nightmare of Stormont’s record-breaking hiatus (well, Guinness didn’t recognise it but the technicalities keeping NI from this “glory” didn’t really help) Westminster didn’t swoop in as they could have. For those who are unfamiliar, Stormont’s actually spent a third of its existence not governing.

The Guardian's article on this (www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/apr/09/texas-woman-26-charged-murder-self-induced-abortion) quotes two activists who entirely erase the female sex, and, incidentally, change the meaning of what they think they are saying:

“We don’t yet know all the details surrounding this tragic event,” said Rockie Gonzales, founder and board chair of the organization.

“What we do know is that criminalizing pregnant people’s choices or pregnancy outcomes, which the state of Texas has done, takes away people’s autonomy over their own bodies, and leaves them with no safe options when they choose not to become a parent,” Gonzalez said.

A parent can be the impregnating one, too, and the safe options are quite different in that case. Also, he can't be prosecuted for murder because of having a miscarriage or a self-induced abortion.

Nancy Cárdenas Peña, Texas state director for policy and advocacy for the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Justice, said in a statement that abortion should be available on the woman’s own terms where she feels most comfortable.

“Allowing criminal law to be used against people who have ended their own pregnancies serves no reasonable state purpose, but may cause great harm to young people, people with lower incomes, and communities of color, who are most likely to encounter or be reported to law enforcement,” Peña said.

The great harm that is caused can affect boys, poor men, and black men, it seems, when they end their own pregnancies.

We can still discuss effects of age, sex, and class, but we can't discuss the impact of biological sex.

[quote landOFconfusion]Saw this on the news wires. Thought it was more important than some of the topics that are usually posted here.

STARR COUNTY, Texas (ValleyCentral) — A woman has been charged with murder after authorities say she performed a “self-induced abortion.”

www.tpr.org/news/2022-04-08/texas-woman-charged-with-murder-for-self-induced-abortion[/quote]
yes it's important - but it would help if you posted it in the correct section, this section is for discussion of issues around sex and gender. Mumsnet is very keen for us to keep that discussion in one place. Not our choice.

@ClaraMumsnet

Hello, we think this is okay where it is, but we'd ask not to let the thread become a bunfight, please.

That doesn't make sense @ClaraMumsnet - my understanding was that MN wanted us to keep sex and Gender discussions in this one area. Allowing it to become a much broader, feminist / women's rights discussion area seems to contradict that?

I personally would prefer the old FWR area open to all these topics, but I thought MN didn't?

Does you gender identity affect this issue? Maybe men (of the male sex kind) will be affected if they identify as women. Identifying as a transwoman will literally change their reproductive class!

Isn't that what everyone thinks?

I posted some of the following on a different thread, but it seems as relevant to post it here too, as I assume the OP is seeking to harangue FWR women for their allyship re protection of women's rights to persons they view as "right wing".

The Democrats in the states have dangled the threat to abortion rights over the heads of female voters for decades as a ploy to keep them voting Dem, even though the Clinton and Obama legislations had 16 years between them to enshrine the right to abortion in federal law. Meanwhile, the Republicans have played the long game of stuffing the Supreme Court with their picks by persuading incumbents to retire rather than carry on until death, in order to ensure Republican candidates took the seats at times when their passage through the Senate could be guaranteed. By doing this, they can stack the court with judges in favour of Roe v Wade can being overturned, and potentially block any proposal to enshrine RvW as federal law as unconstitutional.

Since the Dems are likely looking at losing the House in the mid terms, there's no way they can now enshrine abortion rights at Federal level. It's a fucking mess, but one made by both sides using women's rights as disposable cannon fodder.

The added insult to injury is that that the dehumanising "gender neutral"language, favoured by the so called progressive backed trans lobby, is used in a right wing bill that effects one group and one group only - women. And then people like the OP have to temerity to harangue the same women who are fighting for women's rights to be protected, over legislation that could only have been passed with the collusion of the left, be it witting or unwitting, to create a society where the sacrifice of women's rights at the alter of their own political dogma is seen as a reasonable, and indeed, a good thing. Right wingers removing rights of women to abortion is not conceptually different to left wingers removing women's rights to - well, insert each and every consequence to women of pushing the trans agenda into women's hard won rights. It's also not some sort of recently formulated move created off the back of GC voices emerging as a force. Like I said, banning abortion has been. the long term goal of certain Republicans, and one that the 3 most recent Democratic presidents have failed to address in order to keep dangling the threat over women to secure their votes.

So whilst the Texan law is beyond heinous, Democrats need to look in the mirror and ask themselves how they helped this to happen.

Thanks for that clear and concise synopsis, Amy.

@ClaraMumsnet

Hello, we think this is okay where it is, but we'd ask not to let the thread become a bunfight, please.

May I enquire why you think this?

Are MNHQ conflating anti-abortionists and Gender Critics in the UK?

Meanwhile in Scotland

news.stv.tv/west-central/back-off-scotland-call-for-maree-todd-msp-to-resign-over-glasgow-anti-abortion-protest

@ClaraMumsnet

Hello, we think this is okay where it is, but we'd ask not to let the thread become a bunfight, please.

I'd also like to know the reason for this being in Sex and Gender; thanks.

I think the OP put this here for particular reasons of their own.
Given the speed with which posts are moved to this board from elsewhere, I am puzzled as to why this thread hasn't been moved to the feminist chat or women's health or anywhere else.

@endofthelinefinally

I think the OP put this here for particular reasons of their own. Given the speed with which posts are moved to this board from elsewhere, I am puzzled as to why this thread hasn't been moved to the feminist chat or women's health or anywhere else.

I tend to agree. Would like to hear from MNHQ.

Seems entirely relevant to me.

This woman could not have identified out of her pregnancy, nor her arrest.

Men are not restricted from accessing essential healthcare, nor arrested when they try to self-treat themselves after having been denied healthcare.

Banning abortion is about banning women, real women, from having full body autonomy. It is a perfect example of the nonsense that gender identitarianists spout: that sex is irrelevant, only gender id matters. Because gender id is ignored when deciding who to penalise over their biology.

NeverEndingFireworks put it well in her question:

"That doesn't make sense @ClaraMumsnet - my understanding was that MN wanted us to keep sex and Gender discussions in this one area. Allowing it to become a much broader, feminist / women's rights discussion area seems to contradict that?

I personally would prefer the old FWR area open to all these topics, but I thought MN didn't? "

I'd like to know as well. Has anyone had an answer yet?



@JellySaurus

Seems entirely relevant to me.

This woman could not have identified out of her pregnancy, nor her arrest.

Men are not restricted from accessing essential healthcare, nor arrested when they try to self-treat themselves after having been denied healthcare.

Banning abortion is about banning women, real women, from having full body autonomy. It is a perfect example of the nonsense that gender identitarianists spout: that sex is irrelevant, only gender id matters. Because gender id is ignored when deciding who to penalise over their biology.

I don't disagree with your general point about relevancy. But I don't think that's why the OP posted this here. They could have said something along the lines of what you say, if that's the concern. Instead they made a point of saying this subject is 'more important than some of the topics that are usually posted here.'

Undoubtedly, DameHelena, the OP is a plopper out for reaction rather than actual discussion. At the most generous, perhaps the OP is in America and isn't aware that the situation there differs from in the UK. Nonetheless, it triggers worthwhile discussion - albeit not in the direction the OP may have intended.

As far as I am concerned, F:S&G is now the main Feminism board. Hardly any point discussing issues to do with women if you ignore the effects of sex and/or gender.

Amazing. Three pages of people complaining that I dared to post a topic here when it’s the linked discussion board that appears when you select “Talk > Women’s rights” on a mobile device.

I’m posting again because a leaked draft has revealed that the US Supreme Court has already voted to repeal Roe v. Wade in favour of letting states set their own abortion laws.

www.politico.com/news/2022/05/02/supreme-court-abortion-draft-opinion-00029473

The case I linked in Texas is just a taste of the laws that will be used against women in the US.

I do think this is worthy of a new thread. I am so upset today- this is the main article in the Times and I just cannot bear it. Think it needs to have its own thread without the negativity and criticism.

We have one

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4542161-breaking-claims-that-the-american-supreme-court-will-strike-down-roe-v-wade?reply=117010968