Roe v Wade overturned

[yourhairiswinterfire]

Fucking devastating.

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

Are you saying that you support the overruling of Roe vs Wade- in the US not here- as supported by the Times?

it's a relatively simple question.

Not sure if this has been shared here already

www.feministcurrent.com/2022/06/27/mary-lou-singleton-on-roe-v-wade-the-abortion-debate-and-how-we-got-here/

I'm saying that overturning Roe v Wade, which was never accepted as a correct decision, made by correct authority, by the whole population of USA, was a very widely predicted tragedy for many American women.

And the left did nothing. Where is the Presidential Executive Order, where are the counter-laws or opposition in the states that had these right-wing bills ready for the overturning?

I don't support or not support the overturning of Roe v Wade, as I'm not an expert in US law, unlike the Supreme Court judges. I support abortion rights, and it'd be the hill I'm prepared to die on if they should ever be threatened in England, where I live.

Other countries have different laws, and there's fuck all I, or you, can do about that.

The Times was not campaigning for Roe -v-Wade to be overturned as you claimed in your earlier post. That is disingenuous hyperbole on your part.

The Times leader was taking a legalistic approach to this. I'm a practising solicitor. I know almost nothing about the US Constitution. I do however follow the legal arguments that the original decision was questionable.

Since 1973 , successive administrations have been content to rely on stare decisis. Stare decisis however can be disapplied - and has been. As others have said- that's been in the offing for years. The Clinton and Obama administrations could have sought to introduce legislation- they didn't.

Why are you, on a largely UK based website, using the username "antifascist" ? The UK is not "a fascist regime".

'The US is a terrible place to be a poor woman: exceptional among nations belonging to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in having zero national entitlement to maternity pay, it has no universal healthcare, the highest rates of maternal mortality of any wealthy nation and barely any support with the costs of childcare.', from www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jun/26/women-must-be-allowed-to-defend-abortion-as-a-sex-based-right

@antifascist - do you support all of the above if the Roe v Wade is reinstated?

I will not travel to US, as I don't agree with many of their policies, the same way I won't give my tourist money to other countries which I think are repressive, eg Poland, Hungary in EU, many other ones across the world.

Not sure what else you expect me to do? What are you doing to ensure abortion access across the US? Maybe we can all learn some useful practical steps we can take to overturn legislation in other countries? The homosexual men prosecuted in Africa and Asia would also love to hear from you with the surefire way of changing legislation in their countries by external pressure, do tell.

Meh, one place I should've used 'people'. Homosexual people, not just men, across the globe (plus all the women in US) are looking to you for solution antifa, please share with the group.

FloIsMe you’re 100% right that we are alone. Always.
Thank God for David Steel a young opposition MP at the time who beat the odds with a private member’s bill.
Governments with big, safe majorities have never helped us- i should have said in my previous post, Labour also had all of the 2000s to do something about abortion rights in NI. Did they fuck. Nothing.

Also I have heard from women who were campaigners back in 1967 that it wasn’t entirely that Parliament had had a sudden never-to-be repeated outbreak of feminism or humanity towards women’s reproductive autonomy. Or they had a sudden revulsion at the annual death toll of poor women and girls from back street abortions or at the traumatic abandonment and hopefully adoption of illegitimate babies.

It was that the thalidomide scandal had broken and so there was a brief cultural moment where (in addition to some Parliamentarians with interest in all the above reasons), enough Parliamentarians at the right time wanted a way for women not to have to continue pregnancies with children who might be born with serious physical disabilities, such that it passed.

It must have been a once-in-a-blue-moon alignment of the political stars in 1967, the result of which has radically benefited women in GB (not Ni) ever since and thank god for that.
But what it really shows, I think, is that women can only rely on ourselves and so compromise on our own party political interests and pragmatism on our part and making strategic single issue alliances is the only way that we will ever get anything that we need politically.

I do not support Roe Vs Wade overruling.

But I haven't got a clue what you're on about re trans.

I have been in a sort of shock about this since Friday afternoon when I heard about it. I keep waking up each morning and not quite believing it’s really happened. I can’t believe that in today’s modern, connected global society, that it’s in any way acceptable for even a moment that half of the population in any given US state are being chained to their reproductive capacity, while the other half continue to live their lives completely unchanged. Land of the the Free? What about the love of democracy? The SCOTUS has essentially been ruined as a trusted institution.the ramifications are just so huge of this. Even for us in the UK.

I mean, where are the new legal compulsions on the blokes to parent and house and pay for the children they will now be fathering?

Can these judges not see how horrific it is going to be for children to be born into absolutely shit situations purely by legal compulsion? This is just a horrific way to be forced to bring any child into the world and I will not stop being shocked by it.

I feel so fortunate to be in the UK a with the laws that we have. But the US is very close to home, we have a ‘special relationship’ with them politically and speaking selfishly, the very scary thing is that the UK tends to follow their lead culturally over time.

Trump has been threatening this since 2016: www.indexoncensorship.org/2020/11/forced-motherhood-is-an-infringement-on-free-expression/

This longstanding American research study (Turnaway study) looks at what happens when women are given abortions they want or are not given abortions they want and are forced to continue with pregnancies:

www.ansirh.org/sites/default/files/publications/files/the_harms_of_denying_a_woman_a_wanted_abortion_4-16-2020.pdf

www.ansirh.org/research/ongoing/turnaway-study

The study finds that many of the common claims about the detrimental effects on women’s health of having an abortion are not supported by evidence. For example, women who have an abortion are not more likely than those denied the procedure to have depression, anxiety, or suicidal ideation. We find that 95% of women report that having the abortion was the right decision for them over five years after the procedure.

The Turnaway Study does find serious consequences of being denied a wanted abortion on women’s health and wellbeing. Women denied a wanted abortion who have to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term have four times greater odds of living below the Federal Poverty Level (FPL). In addition, women denied abortion are:

More likely to experience serious complications from the end of pregnancy including eclampsia and death.
More likely to stay tethered to abusive partners.
More likely to suffer anxiety and loss of self-esteem in the short term after being denied abortion.
Less likely to have aspirational life plans for the coming year.
More likely to experience poor physical health for years after the pregnancy, including chronic pain and gestational hypertension.
The study also finds that being denied abortion has serious implications for the children born of unwanted pregnancy, as well as for the existing children in the family.

Maybe I'm less shocked because I remember the 1967 Abortion Act going through. I was a child and didn't understand the significance but I knew it was a big deal and I also knew women in Ireland and lots of other countries didn't have this right. I think maybe because I remember life before it and some of the campaigning, I feel more positive about the chances of winning again.

But what I do feel negative about is the idea that there's any point in trusting any political party with this. Everyone knew the Republicans would do this as soon as they got the chance. Everyone. They never made a secret of it. And yet - and I don't follow US politics that closely so correct me If I'm wrong - I've read that Obama had promised to codify (I think that's the right word?) Roe Vs Wade at a federal level, and didn't. I've read that Hillary Clinton chose an anti abortionist as a running mate. I've read that Biden could have codified the law and didn't.

Is any of this correct? If it is, the entire Democratic Party should be on their knees to women right now.

The Democrats are apparently too busy denying knowledge of what a woman is to be of any use to American women.

Thank you Flo it’s good to hear some positivity. It would be amazing if this could be reversed via whatever legal mechanism for all of the States and the right to contraception and abortion being positively enshrined in whatever way it needs to be done, and also as permanent as possible safeguards then put in to prevent this issue being devolved back to each state in future.

Yes, it is correct. For as long as Roe v. Wade has been in effect, the Democratic Party has used it as a wedge issue to gain the female vote. It has always been a poorly decided and vulnerable law. They've had several opportunities to codify it and have failed to do so, because doing so would take the wedge issue off the table and they might have to actually start delivering something of value to the American people.

The issue they have now is that the loudest part of their base is calling for unrestricted abortion up to the point of birth, which is an extremely unpopular position in the US—potentially more unpopular than a full abortion ban—and their ability to make it a central issue in the '22 and '24 elections is severely hampered by the state of their economy, encroaching gender and racialising ideology in schools (making parents a voting bloc that is mostly against them), and gas/fuel/supply shortages. The Democrat Party's most faithful voters are middle-class and wealthier white women, who will be able to travel to California and get an abortion up to the point of fetal viability regardless.

The best option for women who want abortion available in their state is to work at the local and state level to make that legal.

Thanks for confirming that FireFlyBoogaloo. I’d wondered for a long time if the Democrats were holding back so they could use it as a threat over women to secure their votes, but I kept telling myself not to be so cynical. And now I suppose they’re saying they need your votes - and your donations - to fight it? I don’t know how Democrat women have the patience - I would just want to rip them all a new arsehole.

Obama in 2007: the Freedom of Choice Act is my highest priority.

Obama in 2009: the Freedom of Choice Act is not my highest legislate priority.

twitter.com/davidsirota/status/1540540806930395142?t=Wjszwt9bt1Sn1NBQ09ZVXg&s=19

Joe Biden's record of opposing abortion rights (all backed up with evidence in the linked twitter thread):

twitter.com/MayWeAllRise/status/1541094723993092096?t=xXG-WESORyr9v_5Qs1J40A&s=19

jensorensen.com/2019/05/14/roe-v-wade-overturn-abortion-cartoon/

this sums it up.

Indeed. Calm down wimminz, we'll sort this as soon as we've got the IMPORTANT stuff done.

Rinse and fucking repeat. And these days, don't worry, we'll look at single sex spaces as soon as we've got the Tories out.

Nope. Statement of intent first please, THEN votes.

Except I think it would be

'How did you let that happen'

Not sure 'we' is right here.

I just returned from a short trip to West Virginia, one of the states where abortion became illegal overnight. A 1882 law making abortion illegal for any reason at any time has never been rescinded.

I read that even before this there was only one clinic providing abortions still open in the entire state.

WV is a beautiful and mountainous state, but with many isolated communities and pockets where there are limited services of any kind. We drove long stretches with no cellphone signal. I overheard someone in the tiny grocery say the closest Walmart was an hour drive. (Any other local stores would have limited options with much higher prices).

In the comments on the Facebook page for the one women’s clinic mentioned above, in response to someone suggesting everyone wear Handmaid costumes for a rally, there were many saying “No, please don’t do that!”

Here is why:

wyvarchive.com/handmaids-tale-reproductive-rights-movements-white-supremacy-problem/?fbclid=IwAR1Z7UOAw6hSF4QVNQCzTaX7l646kdgFiavDFkiE-ABYOyzMOLs22QAFCSU#:~:text=This%20reproductive%20regulation%20towards%20social%20objectives%20is%20exactly,sterilization%2C%20as%20well%20as%20sexual%20and%20reproductive%20abuses

Interesting on the Handmaid's Tale.

Atwood herself states in an interview that she used material from different parts of the world, the Islamic revolution of 1979, the rise of Christian right, and the story of one white woman (Mary Webster) in 17th century New England who was accused of witchcraft, cleared of the charges, but whom a mob then tried to hang, then roll in snow, and then bury. She appears to have survived all that.

Atwood may not have used material from the way enslaved black women were treated in colonial America and elsewhere, and I can see why people would criticise the book and its author for that. I'm not equally certain that people, in general, think about the Handmaid's Tale as referring to white women only, though, and I have seen women of colour wearing the red bonnet and cloak in demonstrations in Texas.

The author of the critical piece you list also mentions that she regards the word 'woman' as exclusive, so she would probably prefer that nobody makes signs which mention women's bodies or women's rights for the abortion rights protests.

There's a lot of exclusion that comes from this new kind of inclusiveness. Planned Parenthood also advises protesters not to use images of coat-hangers or use the name of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

If we're forcing women to keep babies that they don't necessarily want to keep, do we make men stay who would walk out?

There's something on another thread posting about how all 3 of their losses technically count as abortions.

I don't know ANYONE who skips off to have an abortion or lose a baby in any way, so why are we punishing them more?!

Well said. Intersectionality is a race to the bottom and a distraction from the main issues that affect all women. The logical end result of intersectionality is strong individualism, which precludes collective action and encourages infighting.

In other words, cute idea for a late 80s paper but not useful to anyone wanting to get anything done.

I didn’t check out the author but found the pushback on the Facebook page interesting. Knowing the author has issues with using words that mean actual things, like “woman” provides some new perspective.

I haven’t seen or read Handmaids Tale, either. I don’t think it is (for me) a criticism of the author to say “not everyone is going to find these costumes helpful to the cause of assuring rights for women.”

I do find the pageantry a bit silly, but understand that whatever gets people to the discussion is useful.