Roe v Wade overturned

[yourhairiswinterfire]

Fucking devastating.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-us-canada-61709865

A retweet from the indomitable Bette Midler:

mobile.twitter.com/BetteMidler/status/1521610549603229697

And some powerful cartoons from Ted Littleford: www.tedlittleford.com/

Thanks for this, this one got me

I have written to Liz Truss to ask that Foreign office travel advice includes advice about countries and USA states with abortion bans so that women who may be pregnant can make an informed choice to travel or avoid travel to these countries incase of early pregnancy problems or miscarriage that may not be appropriately treated putting their lives at risk.

Here's a thread I started, letter in the OP which should be self explanatory.

To ask Liz Truss to require Foreign Office Travel advice to include advice regarding countries that ban abortion where women may not receive appropriate treatment for miscarriage http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/amiibeingunreasonable/4577248-to-ask-liz-truss-to-require-foreign-office-travel-advice-to-include-advice-regarding-countries-that-ban-abortion-where-women-may-not-receive-appropriate-treatment-for-miscarriage

To ask Liz Truss to require Foreign Office Travel advice to include advice regarding countries that ban abortion where women may not receive appropriate treatment for miscarriage http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/amiibeingunreasonable/4577248-to-ask-liz-truss-to-require-foreign-office-travel-advice-to-include-advice-regarding-countries-that-ban-abortion-where-women-may-not-receive-appropriate-treatment-for-miscarriage

Bette Midler. I don’t even want to look even if this one tweet resonates. She’s made so many awful comments since joining Twitter and never seems to moderate herself . I think personalities like this is a big part of our problem in America.

Here’s of her recent awful tweets. I think her mask slipped a bit here.

www.mercurynews.com/2022/05/13/bette-midler-upsets-moms-by-tweeting-try-breastfeeding-amid-formula-crisis/amp/

Blistering article from Janice Turner in the Times www.thetimes.co.uk/article/502e7594-f642-11ec-84c1-32e852e780b0?shareToken=90ef77f4fb99f54c04044a7223021fee

and yet Janice was too busy stirring up the crowd about trans people to act on abortion rights, - I wonder how many articles she has devoted to each subject from her platform in the last 5 years.

Ecen this piece is full of snide and evidence free remarks about Bernie bros and trans people, yet she writes for the Murdoch owned Times which recently came out in favour of abolishing Roe v Wade.

No chance of Janice calling out Murdoch or his allies though. Janice wouldn't bite the hand that offers her an anti trans platform.

Superb from Janice. One of her best.

still waiting fir the explanation of why British journalists and British feminists campaigning in the UK for a UK law, the equality act 2010 to be applied as it was written and not as SW claim it to be

means roe v wade being over turned is our fault

I don't think anyone is saying that.

What I am saying is that high profile journalists using the overturning of Roe V Wade as an opportunity to continue their obsession with trans people- often in alliance with the same groups who worked so hard to end abortion rights is both petty, childish, factually incorrect and tactically and strategically insane

Thank you Janice. Very important to have her voice in such an influential newspaper.

antifascist I have campaigned long enough around abortion rights to know that you can’t wait for a government of the politics that you prefer to make a difference, they simply don’t do it. Women’s rights are NEVER enough of a priority. They see it as a vote-loser. Janice is spot on, they take your vote and then they do fuck all for women.
Where I would take issue with Janice is that Hillary Clinton wasn’t that great of a pro-choice advocate actually- she used to campaign on ‘safe, legal and RARE’ which is not a pro choice way of framing abortion and contributes to abortion stigma.

Obviously. there are as many different reasons as there are women needing an abortion. Women don’t aim to have to need one. Achieving ‘rarity’ is impossible, and would require perfect contraceptive methods, men willing to use contraception all the time, no sexual abuse, rape or assault, and no fetal abnormalities, perfect life circumstances, Social support, income and housing for all women and their families and most importantly would require all women of reproductive capacity wanting to be a mother (again) at any point in time. Does that sound like something feminists and pro choice campaigners should be aiming for?

New Labour refused to do anything on extending abortion rights to Northern Ireland in the 1990s despite a massive Parliamentary majority. the Tories are currently refusing to do anything to enforce the laws (decriminalised, which is great) in Northern Ireland despite their (lesser) massive majority post-Brexit.

So women have to campaign how they think will work best. Working with whoever will help to campaign on the single issue is perfectly acceptable in single-issue campaigning. All campaigning is welcome though, so I hope you will keep at it yourself.

Other political movements respect their elders even when their views no longer align with modern mores. Black Lives Matter would never forsake Marcus Garvey or Malcolm X; the LGBT movement deifies those who in 1969 bravely defied homophobic police at the Stonewall Inn in New York City. Feminism alone lays waste to each preceding generation of leaders, campaigners and thinkers as impure, backward, irrelevant, wrong.

I’d ever thought of this like this before but it’s a key problem of feminism- internalised misogyny leaving each generation of feminists to reinvent the wheel. Something to reflect on how we can break the cycle.

Is that what they are doing?

Or are they correctly pointing out that the erasure of the word 'woman', especially when talking about women's health has had a devastating impact in the US, and has made this fight so much harder because it is no longer sex based.

You only have to look at NHS pages to see the erasure of the word woman but not the same for referring to men.

But then would white males who are not trans woman allow that to happen to the word male?

As the mother of a daughter, its clear there are multiple fights to be had to ensure she has the rights that I have always known. (That's before we even get to the situations where I have never been equal).

One fight is the protection of single sex spaces to ensure her safety and dignity.

One is the protection of her mental health to ensure she doesn't make life changing decisions with devastating consequences without proper support and care.

One is her right to have an abortion.

There are other things I have not listed. The overturning of Roe vs Wade is devastating for girls her age but its not the only danger to her.

I have a son also. He will be fine.

Nope @antifascist you cannot defend what you can’t define. British feminists get this, American lib gems clearly didn’t. They allowed “women” to be replaced by “people” in places where it really matters such as oooh discussions around abortion, pregnancy & contraception.

it’s also worth bearing in mind that the legal protection of trans people in UK is far superior to anything that exists in the USA. Britain is not America

And trans women are not women, they are trans women

words matter

you can’t wait for a government of the politics that you prefer to make a difference, they simply don’t do it.

Just to add to Slothtoes' excellent post: the 1967 Abortion Act, might have happened under a Labour government but only, if I recall correctly, because Liberal MP David Steel presented it as a Private Members Bill. I've not read up on the reasons why Harold Wilson's government hadn't attempted the legislation themselves but I'm going to take a punt it was a cross between chicken shit scared and couldn't be arsed.

Politically we're all alone wims, and we always have been.

I will certainly keep campaigning @slothtoes - I have less enthusiasm about an article which as you rightly state overemphasises H Clinton's role - and takes the opportunity to divisively attack both supporters of Bernie Sanders and trans activists and their supporters.

Turner wrote her divisive piece in a newspaper which is actively campaigning for the end to Roe vs Wade.

i'm not sure why the 1967 Labour government- supporting a private members bill to legalise abortion is evidence that " wims" are all alone , and always have been. it also discredits some of the women activists who were members of that government - Barbara Castle and Jennie Lee to name just two.

I'm sorry you don't understand the point, antifascist, but I think plenty of others will: Labour had won a landslide victory only the year before and yet despite that, didn't attempt to introduce the legislation themselves, but are now more than happy to take the credit for it happening under their watch.

the LGBT movement deifies those who in 1969 bravely defied homophobic police at the Stonewall Inn in New York City

Well not really when they keep spreading the falsehood that Marsha P Johnson "threw the first brick". And they try to ostracise Fred Sargeant.

Turner wrote her divisive piece in a newspaper which is actively campaigning for the end to Roe vs Wade.

Is it? 😮

You might be interested in this book discussion. I'm going to get hold of a copy to read. As a brief synopsis it's about the suppression of women's history and knowledge and how this affects each generation as we seem to need to learn the same things over and over.

"Women of Ideas" by Dale Spender - a discussion by Emma Dalton, Jo Brew and Dorothea Annison

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-times-view-on-us-abortion-law-and-overturning-roe-v-wade-right-to-choose-vdbb2jdnh

No it isn't. I assume they are referring to this Times leader.

Dale Spender is always worth reading or discussing.

"A draft US Supreme Court ruling would overturn judge-made law and put the issue in the hands of elected politicians. That is the right approach"

Are you saying you agree with this?

@antifascist 'A draft US Supreme Court ruling would overturn judge-made law and put the issue in the hands of elected politicians. That is the right approach"

Are you saying you agree with this?'

The argument can be made that the laws that govern people should be examined in a process that gives the populace a right to influence these laws, in a democracy, by putting law-making into the hands of elected politicians. You may disagree with that argument, but you'll find that that's the was law-making also works in this country, via Parliamentary scrutiny.

You may disagree with democratic processes, and have better ideas on how to govern society. I'm all ears