And this is exactly why Posie Parker is a liability

[MerchedBeca]

Yes, she's charismatic, has style and says things out loud we all wish we'd had the ovaries to say.

But sometimes, the shit she says is fucking dangerous. HOW can she say she's standing for women's rights and then blithely say that our access to abortion is a price worth paying? WTFucking hell?

This isn't about elites, or head girls or any of that shit that Posie chucks at women who disagree with her. We're seeing the biggest pushback on women's rights since before women's lib, we need to build a grass roots movement to fight this, urgently, and Posie's tactics are harming us.

So, this morning someone called Billy Bragg out on his stance on women's rights, and he came back directly with a screenshot of Posie taking shit about Roe vs Wade.

We are NEVER going to convince the left wing that this is an issue they need to get to grips with if the loudest voice they hear on this Posie who's very obviously courting the US religious right, and if every time someone tries to have a conversation with the left about this topic, we're all smeared by association with Posie and whatever shit she's said recently. I know she says she's not a feminist but that detail is lost our detractors. She's a gift to those who want to paint us all as ultra right wing bigots, and this matters.

I am 100% with you on that.

@PurgatoryOfPotholes interesting

In the 'dictionary definition' sense it is.

This is one of the realities of Malta's ban on abortion in all circumstances.

This was dated June 22nd, reporting on the situation of a pregnant American woman and her husband who were on holiday in Malta when the placenta detached from the inside of her uterus and she started hemorrhaging. Didn't get much attention though.

Andrea and Jay never thought they'd be in this situation: praying that their baby daughter's heart stops beating before Andrea develops a deadly infection.

The couple, from the US, were on holiday in Malta when Andrea Prudente, who's 16-weeks pregnant, started losing blood. Doctors told her the placenta was partly detached and her pregnancy was no longer viable.

But the baby's heart was still beating - and in Malta this means that by law doctors cannot end the pregnancy.

For the past week, the couple have been stuck in a hospital room, waiting.

"We're sitting here with the understanding that if she goes into labour, then the hospital will engage. If the baby's heart stops, they will help with that. Other than that, they won't do anything," Jay Weeldreyer tells me over the phone.

His voice is tired and angry. He worries Andrea's condition could change rapidly at any time.

"With the haemorrhaging and the separation of the placenta from the uterus, with the membrane fully ruptured and the baby's umbilical cord protruding through Andrea's cervix, she stands at an extraordinarily high risk of infection, all of which could be prevented," he says.

"The baby can't live, there's nothing that can be done to change that. We wanted her, we still want her, we love her, we wish she could survive, but she won't. And not only are we in a spot when we're losing a daughter that we wanted, but the hospital is also prolonging Andrea's exposure to risk," he adds.

Their only hope is an emergency medical evacuation to the UK - paid for by their travel insurance.

In 2017, another tourist had to be evacuated to France to have an emergency termination. But for Maltese women this is not an option.

(continues)
It's a law that Dr Lara Dimitrijevic, a lawyer in Malta and chair of the Women's Rights Foundation, has been fighting for years.

"Women here rarely speak out," she tells me.

"The general practice is that doctors either let the body expel the foetus on its own, or - if the patient gets very ill and develops sepsis - then they will intervene to try to save the mother's life.

BBC link

As I'm sure many of you remember, this is similar to the situation Savita Halappanavar and her doctors in Ireland were placed in. As long as the baby's heart was beating, the legislation required them to wait to intervene until Savita had actually developed sepsis. They could not take action any earlier. If doctors are legally obliged to let a critical health issue develop until it becomes life-threatening, they will not manage to save all the patients at the last minute once they are allowed to act.

They're not wizards, and there are no magic wands.

To say nothing of the longterm ramifications of recovering from sepsis, even if you survive. An ounce of prevention is truly worth a pound of cure on this one which is why in all other situations, HCPs do their level best to diagnose sepsis early and prevent it!: Post Sepsis Syndrome

Excellently put and very well said.

Same one.

Dr Dunne’s paper adds: “It would be unthinkable that general discomfort could prevent a cisgender woman from using segregated showering facilities after she had a double mastectomy.

“In reality, UK law tolerates a considerable amount of bodily diversity when cisgender and intersex persons use single-gender spaces.

“Why are trans persons treated differently?”

research-information.bris.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/139271435/Bristol_Pure_Version_PD.pdf

Women feel uncomfortable with the presence of strange males when undressed because they know they are physically and psychologically vulnerable. The presence of women with health issues does not cause me any physical danger or any feeling of it.

I understand some men feel uncomfortable when their porn search returns results they find physically unattractive. I suggest that the way it feels to be an undressed woman who is aware of males being present is quite, quite different to the physical sensation any given man experiences when he loses his erection. I fear there has been confusion between the two.

If that Private Members Bill had gone through in its original form, 94% of abortions in England and Wales in 2022 would have been completely unaffected.

The remaining 6% would have needed to have the kind of medical justification that England and Wales currently apply to abortion over 24 weeks.

Every time I see this bill plopped down, it’s just the title. Why? I can only guess it’s because the ploppers want to imply there was an attempt to completely ban abortion.

Every time I see this bill plopped down, it’s just the title. Why? I can only guess it’s because the ploppers want to imply there was an attempt to completely ban abortion.

Here's the whole bill, there's not much more to than can be seen in the original screenshot.

Baroness Nicolson wishes to lower the gestational time limit for abortion to twelve weeks.

@MangyInseam - the case was Roe!!! It stood for decades. The justices who overturned the decades old decision swore under oath during their senate confirmation hearings that Roe was settled law (i.e. that abortion IS a constitutional right).

The right to be free from forced labor is a basic human right. States cannot deny their citizens access to a safe abortion. Your argument that "it's up to the states now" is a white supremist & misogynistic talking point. It was the same argument used to justify enslaving black Americans and Jim Crow segregation. The first laws to restrict abortion in America were (1) a white supremacy response to rising immigration from southern and eastern Europe and (2) to keep women out of the medical field and in the home where they belong.

Keep up the denial about the hate you are spewing. Continue to think you know more about my country's laws and history than I do (you don't). But maybe next time do your research a little better before you appropriate another country's white supremist agenda to suit your own political needs.

@Cartoonmom Keep up the denial about the hate you are spewing.

Hate has to be the most misappropriated word of the last few years. Get a grip. Someone having discourse with you isn't hate. Listen to yourself.

In the real world, however, the 'news' tab states:

The 2017-2019 session of Parliament has prorogued and this Bill will make no further progress.

bills.parliament.uk/bills/2028/news

However, if you anticipate further action then it would be good to have a link to that, LB.

Someone having discourse with you isn't hate. Listen to yourself.
Nobody's saying that though!
please try, just a little bit to see what the post actually said

Your argument that "it's up to the states now" is a white supremist & misogynistic talking point. It was the same argument used to justify enslaving black Americans and Jim Crow segregation. The first laws to restrict abortion in America were (1) a white supremacy response to rising immigration from southern and eastern Europe and (2) to keep women out of the medical field and in the home where they belong.
THAT is what the hate refers to, not somebody "having discourse with you" !
If you don't think that is course for concern though, don't really know what to say to that.

I suggest that the way it feels to be an undressed woman who is aware of males being present is quite, quite different

OT: as a small merail and digression on this issue, I recommend this book because it goes back to the innovation of photography and the harms it represented to women in the form of embarrassment, humiliation, sense of diminishment, loss of control etc.: The Face That Launched a Thousand Lawsuits: The American Women Who Forged a Right to Privacy

A compelling account of how women shaped the common law right to privacy during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries
Drawing on a wealth of original research, Jessica Lake documents how the advent of photography and cinema drove womenwhose images were being taken and circulated without their consentto court. There they championed the creation of new laws and laid the groundwork for America's commitment to privacy.

www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0300214227/r

On the different responses to privacy, take a look at: Disembodied data and corporeal violation: our gendered privacy law priorities and preoccupations

Whether one is more (or less) concerned with issues of image rights or the use of online tracking mechanisms by retailers, the role of CCTV in city streets, the ability to access a safe abortion, the media’s publication of salacious stories, the ability of government agencies to collect personal information, or the abuse and harassment of individuals in the home or online is likely to be influenced by social and historical experience. In this article I argue that such experience and consequent investments in ‘privacy’ are also gendered and should be recognised as such by legal scholars of privacy, legislators and courts. Privacy law relates inextricably to the self and calls into question how we (as individuals and groups) envision, articulate and perform our sense of self. It marks out boundaries between persons and perceived sources of power and oppression. This article examines three periods of heated privacy law debate (mid 19thcentury, turn of 20thcentury and 1960s/70s) and demonstrates that whereas men’s privacy priorities primarily focused on controlling and concealing information about themselves; women’s privacy issues mostly centred on protecting against violations of themselves. Masculine privacy focuses on the ways in which disembodied or abstract data – guarded by or as forms of property – poses challenges to professional and public reputations. Feminine constructions of privacy are preoccupied with invasions of the autonomy and dignity of embodied selves. In order to further develop privacy law in Australia, we must first recognize that gender fundamentally influences our paradigms and priorities of privacy protection – as seen in pressing debates about online consumer data protection and ‘revenge pornography’.

unswlawjournal.unsw.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Final-PDF-LAKE.pdf

94% of abortions in 2021 took place before 12 weeks. Or did you not know that?
If we went for 2019, when the bill was presented, we would still be looking at approximately 91%.The stats are publicly available- just Google UK abortion statistics and you’ll get the official Government stats in the first few suggestions.

The Baroness has stated numerous times that her bill was intended to reduce the ‘on-demand’ time limit while leaving the already-existing ‘medical’ reasons intact.

Posie Parker is an amplifier for women's voices.
Billy Bragg wants to silence us.

94% of abortions in 2021 took place before 12 weeks. Or did you not know that?
Maybe so, but also a lot might not realise they are pregnant before 12 weeks or change their mind and realise they can't cope after then.
Would you want the option taken away to have one later if needed?

Why are you only responding to half of the post? Its as unconvincing as the OP.

The Baroness has stated numerous times that her bill was intended to reduce the ‘on-demand’ time limit while leaving the already-existing ‘medical’ reasons intact.

No. You're trying hard to reframe the context.

Keep up (referring to posts hiterto made by the poster) the hate you (the poster) are spewing.

Nobody's saying that though!
please try, just a little bit to see what the post actually said

[Quote] Your argument that "it's up to the states now" is a white supremist & misogynistic talking point!!! <Cue meltdown language.>

It smears the intention of the poster. She is making a point most people can evaluate for themselves. Interesting counterpoints have been made, again most readers can evaluate for themselves. So this is not good and the argument must be shut down. How to achieve this? I know, I'll insinuate that the original poster intended to be on the same page as the people who argued for slavery. She's now spewing 'hate' and later will be defined as supporting White Supremacy and a racist.

If you don't think that is course for concern though, don't really know what to say to that.

I think it's sad you don't think attempting to shut down discourse with these tactics is a course for concern.

But if you don't know what to say, you can always just say nothing.

Facts, Embarrassing? How frightfully sensible of you to point that out. Don't you know they want to obsess over a bill from years ago while women right now are lucky to be airlifted from Malta to get a lifesaving procedure. Which is what happened to the woman I mentioned a few posts above. She was airlifted the next day, on day 7.

But a Maltese woman wouldn't have had even that fallback. And yet Malta is the progressive darling, and Scotland should aspire to be like it, says our lawyer friend Robin Moira White.

Who by the way also addressed the first panel of the day when the Scots Parliament Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee met on June 21st. (The doctors Duffy and Dunne addressed panel 3.)

Thank you @GoodJanetBadJanet.
I don't think I can add anything else to this thread, but I will continue to speak out about this.

It's bad enough we're dealing with this in the US. I don't want to see it spread to other countries.

Sorry, which half didn’t I respond to?

I think TheInebriati was talking to Janet, who always does that.

Yes I was. And I know I'm stupid to allow posters to irritate me.

That's why I'm always suspicious of those who want to poke the abortion debate here. We have a fairly good system currently, no one is actively campaigning against it.

But if it does get debated again, some (on the left and on the right) will vote with their conscious at vote to reduce the time limits. It's the only way it could go,I don't think we could get a situation where it's easier and cheaper?

It's as if some are willing it to be an issue.