Thank you for your words regarding the Dobbs decision. I love that fact that, though you recognize the goodness of this decision, you emphasize how much work there is to be done to build a genuine culture of life. We need to build a culture where abortion is unthinkable - yes. I donated $100 to my local LifeNetwork crisis pregnancy center.
I'm a regular donor to both the National Diaper Bank Network and In Shifra's Arms, a Jewish pregnancy care center with both pro-life and pro-choice board members. For this occasion I contributed an extra $100 to In Shifra's Arms.
I chipped in another $54 (a recommended amount) to In Shifra's Arms. Money is fungible, of course, but these donation menus are a handy way to see an organization's common estimated costs:
I will be donating $25 to the Safe Harbor Crisis Nursery in WA state and another 25 to a similar organization in Texas when I have identified one that is doing good work.
"The Cradle is the only adoption agency in the country with an on-site nursery. It's a safe, neutral place for infants to stay while their parents take the time they need to decide if adoption will be the plan for this child. The nursery also enables The Cradle to place infants whose special medical needs may mean that it takes a bit longer to find them a home that is prepared to help them thrive. We are committed to finding a loving home for every child entrusted to our care.
"In recent years, The Cradle has expanded our scope to include Adoption Learning Partners (ALP), online training for prospective adoptive parents and adoption professionals. Through the power of the internet, ALP has made The Cradle's thorough training convenient and accessible to professionals and families all across the globe."
I donated $50 to the National Diaper Bank Network. My employer also matches my donations, so feel free to count it as $50 or $100 however you think is fair.
Re: “What organization supporting vulnerable parents and children would you recommend and why?” — I’ve recently become a regular blood donor, and while my blood is not going specifically to vulnerable parents and children over other patients, my pro-life convictions are a big part of why I started donating. For me, donating blood is an acknowledgement that we are mutually dependent, that we all have claims on each other, that we have bodies so we can take care of each other. I’ve always wanted to have babies so that I could nurture another life with my body, and (so far) physical motherhood has not been an option for me—but I can nurture people by donating blood *right now*.
Thank you! I had a blood transfusion 3.5 years ago (and can’t donate because of anemia) and I’ve recently had a good friend and a family member both need transfusions. I really appreciate your donations!
This is a as close to how I feel about abortion and the national debate of any article I've read. Abortion is a series of failures of more powerful people -- at every level of the culture -- that leaves a dreadful choice to the two vulnerable souls left at the bottom of a sexist and oppressive culture. We could start by saying that any man who is the DNA identified father is responsible for 50% of the burden of raising the child. Monetarily and hopefully in other ways. We have the technology. I have a feeling that would spur a lot of changes immediately.
Abortion, it seems, may never be unthinkable as long as sex is viewed as merely recreational. I can’t imagine abortion becoming unthinkable even if our society does a better job of caring for women until our approach to sex changes. If views of abortion depend on how we understand sex, how can we change our society’s view of sex?
Up until now, I haven't questioned that you were engaging in good faith. The New York Times interview and this post *does* make me question if you are willing to discuss abortion honestly.
In the past you've opposed legislation like SB8 in Texas. Here you call for a 50 state ban on abortions. I get that publicly taking a stand against horrific policy branded as 'pro-life' can get you ousted from the pro-life blogosphere. But this is a moment for being honest about policies that are good and ones that will have horrifying outcomes for our democracy *and* maternal health.
And what does a world where abortion is unthinkable look like, actually? We know what it looks like. Wishing for a world where abortion is unthinkable is wishing for a world where women will be forced to endure horrific pregnancy complications due to preexisting conditions. Where women will have to carry a pregnancy to full term for a fetus who will never live, with a higher likelihood for life altering and future-pregnancy-complicating injuries. And it's a world where all women are treated first and foremost as vessels for new life, not as people whose pain and joy and worth is irrefutable.
I hope and believe our nation is capable of crafting reasonable laws now that doing so is possible. I would be lying if I said Roe being overturned now in this politically charged fashion, made me happy. However, I do have a deep faith in the basic capacity for us to come together and make laws that allow for reasonable medical exceptions for the good of the mother and/or the fetus, and exceptions for rape and incest etc.
I absolutely want to see better access to contraception and more comprehensive support for young/poor women who are pregnant to become so ubiquitous that pregnancy, even an unexpected one, won't ever feel like a trap or punishment. I 100% agree that abortion should not ever be the price for full and equal inclusion in society.
It took some digging, but I found a good chart you and Claire may be interested in. The states that have restrictions on abortion after viability in our now “Post-Roe” world are all “pro-choice” states. States that are set to ban abortion entirely are “pro-life”: https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/abortion-policy-absence-roe
This tracks with my experience in pro choice spaces. Most folks I know care deeply about reproductive justice and ensuring economic coercion does not back people into abortions. And they also know that 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions are almost always health related tragedies where we have an obligation to protect women’s access to necessary care while respecting the life she carries.
Sincere question: Do you have a source for statistics about 2nd/3rd trimester abortions being mostly about health complications? I'm not trying to challenge your claim, I'm just curious because I've never heard that before and would be interested to learn more.
I'm glad you led me on a hunt for some real data on this! I've had some time this afternoon to go down the rabbit hole, and I have some hope that my requests to some health stats folks at government agencies will come through this week. In good news, it does look like at least a couple states collect the data necessary to answer this question. A big challenge is comprehensive reporting: do hospitals report inducing labor pre-viability (~21 weeks) as abortion? That's a policy left up to hospital administrators probably, and could skew the abortion stats.
In qualitative surveys that can't be extrapolated, "new information" about either maternal or the fetus' health, and "hurdles to obtaining care" were both very frequently cited. But that's not helpful here, except to say that tragically we will probably see both maternal mortality and third trimester abortions increase in a post-Roe world as more women have to travel farther to obtain care.
Also not a stat, but there are many tragic stories that are much like this one: https://twitter.com/SJohnsdottire/status/1540797614945439744 I wish everyone who considers themselves pro-life would read them. Note that she had to travel from New York to Kansas for her procedure, because of abortion laws in "pro-choice" NY, even as her health deteriorated.
I also personally know women who have had tragic late term abortions, and you probably do too.
I don't, actually, but thank you very much for taking the time to find those links. I didn't know the CDC kept stats on abortion (linked in the CNN article); I'll have to dig into those some more.
Unfortunately this is misleading. Because more than 90% of abortions are done before 13 weeks, it's hard to get a good p value on surveys that break out reasons for abortions that occur later. You can refer to the Guttmacher article they cite here: https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/journals/3711005.pdf
And Leah, this is what makes me question the honesty of your rhetoric in our Post Roe world. I know you do your research. I know you do great policy analysis. I know you understand our political landscape. The MS law is not what is or will be law in MS or any other “pro-life” state.
I seems only fair at this point that I state my preferred position. In my ideal world, comprehensive sex ed and access to contraception, combined with a real push to teach young people and teens that waiting until they are bit older to have sex is wise. These efforts would help massively reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. Then a robust support system for women and families with young children would help eliminate every possible abortion that was being done out of desperation. I want every woman who is willing to carry to term, whether to keep or to give up for adoption, to have access to everything she needs to safely and securely make that decision. As a society I think we need to provide her those resources when needed.
But even in an ideal world there will be times when women who accidently get pregnant will really be adamantly against carrying the baby to term. So I do support abortion on demand until at least 12 weeks and honestly I am ok with it to the 16-18 week mark. Because even though I do genuinely believe that it is immoral and the murder of an innocent life, honestly I would rather the child go strait to God than be borne and delivered by a woman who is going to resent and be distressed by that child's existence. Worse if it also means she won't consider care for the health of the fetus something she needs make good choices about. There are things worse than a quick death. Being hated, neglected and abused are often on that list, especially if it starts in the womb. IMO
Right now 'pro-choice' states are only about 2 weeks off from the reality you describe here. Here in MN we have abortion restrictions after 20 weeks, a solid publicly funded support structure for women, sex ed required. I mean, definitely room to improve (more funds! more comprehensive sex ed!) but overall very aligned with what you describe. Similar in other states like NY, CA, WA, HI, IL... more here: https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/state-policies-later-abortions
Again I am hoping that even in what were pro life States... in the post Roe world, the centrists and moderates are going to rise up and demand a more reasonable stance. The last poll data I heard stated that less than 20% of the population supported a total ban on elective abortion. And less than 20% of the population supported abortion on demand right up into the 3rd Tri-mester. That leaves 60% of the population willing to find some kind of middle ground that is in-between the extremes.
Part of what gives me little hope of this is the 'toe-the-line' approach that has dominated the pro-life movement and allied Republican politicians up to this point, and the way that has persisted now, after Dobbs. Leah's piece in the Times is part of that persistence! If we were going to have good legislation passed in pro-life states there would have been calls well before Dobbs and now, after, for legislation that is scientifically sound, for policies that don't come between women and critical health care, etc etc. But there aren't. There's only celebration and a push to turn more "pro-choice" states into the horrifying TX/AL/LA/MS/SD reality of near complete bans.
One of the things to keep in mind is that more extreme positions "Sell Newpapers" and "Energize the Base" etc. As Andrew Sullivan pointed out recently, it was easy to push excessive laws while Roe was in place. But now the 60% plus of the population who wants a more moderate approach.... well, all their votes are now truly in play.
For example, I really didn't care much about what a politician said on this topic for most of my voting lifetime. Now i am going to care and be looking specifically for person who has moderate sensible views.
Only time will tell how it actually ends up playing out... but if we stop rewarding extremism across the board, not just on this topic, all our lives would get so much better.
Mississippi’s law bans abortion at 15 weeks except when the mother’s life is in danger, which would have been overturned under Roe.
If the only reasonable laws are ones which permit abortion and the only good faith argument is one that ends in agreeing that abortion ought to be permitted as a matter of choice, then there probably won’t be many pro life people who meet those criteria - but it’s also not a criteria that can credibly claim to be interested in finding common ground or understanding genuine disagreements.
Wildly, this was the moment I realized that, of course, the writers and advocates of this crafted-to-overturn-Roe legislation of course already knew this.
I truly appreciate you responding! I find the “medical emergency” definition in the Mississippi law to be far too narrow for comfort. The state already has a high maternal mortality rate and I fear we will see an increase in the next 6-9 months. I also didn’t like that the text of the bill includes misinformation about abortion vs pregnancy risks. But I respect that you have a different perspective. Talking policy specifics is always worthwhile. And as far as anti-abortion bills go, MS wasn’t the worst!
So if you are asking me... Roe made it difficult to put any sensible restrictions on abortion. Most of Europe for example only allows abortions after 15/16 weeks for unexpected medical reasons. IE the life of the mother is in danger. Serious genetic defects. Rape/Incest etc. But here most State laws limiting abortion on demand to 16 weeks were fought and struck down under Roe in the past. Personally I wish Roberts had been allowed to craft the Majority opinion... aka, allow a more reasonable cut off date without totally reversing Roe.
(Not related to Roe, but related to the questions:) For me, the evils I feel most helpless about are those related to U.S. foreign policy, whether that's been failing to help refugees, leaving the immigration system as an unworkable mess, undermining/deposing other countries' governments, giving money/weapons to dictators, failing to protect Afghans who helped the U.S. military, etc. I've been learning recently about the Iran-Contra affair (and the U.S.' broader involvement in the Middle East during the 1970s-1990s), and gosh, I knew it was crooked, but I didn't know how crooked it was.
Reading the work of writers like you and Erika Bachiochi has really moved the needle for me on abortion, in part because you are consistent and unmoving on focusing on dignity for all instead of punishment. But I want to press you a bit to say more about laws, in the here and now, because the change in law is coming before the change of heart that you are aiming towards.
You want abortion to be illegal in all 50 states. How will cases be investigated? Who will be punished, and to what extent? I don't know about you personally, but Erika Bachiochi has certainly said she supports rape exemptions. In a country where perhaps 1 out of 10 rapes leads to an actual conviction, and those convictions happen far after the rape itself, how would rape exemptions be approved or adjudicated?
I have come much closer to believing in the pro-life movement's vision for the future. But decisions on all of these questions have to happen in the here and now, in the world of today, and I am not hearing anything good or hopeful about these specific questions. And if the path towards this future you want is full of terrible and unjust laws for today, is its foundation built on sand?
It’s hard to pick just one evil, which is depressing. I live in an area that still permits abortion on demand well into the second trimester, and I definitely see welfare advocacy mired in the evil of abortion here. Advocates reject anyone who favors limits on abortion, let alone an almost complete ban, which makes change on abortion and welfare issues seem impossible.
Another thorny thing I come back to over and over is labor rights - I cannot afford to pay much more in food than I am currently paying, but I know that prices now still rely on underpaying and mistreating so many workers along the food production chain. Likewise, I often wish I could have more childcare, but at its current prices it is already unaffordable and even if my income were higher it would still be relying on underpaying workers (mostly women). But yet I still need to feed my family. I do find hope in efforts to raise the minimum wage and provide more worker protections.
I agree with Leah's assessment; however, I don't think outlawing abortion is the answer or even necessary to have fewer abortions. If the U.S. has a broader safety net -- with TANF, the child tax credit, universal health care, paid paternal leave, and birth control, the abortion rates will go down on their own, without any government restrictions. And yes, available birth control is essential, and Justice Thomas's remarks on it from Friday are scary. What pro-life and conservative groups purport about it is untrue.
I think the privacy element in abortion is important, especially now, as women's period tracker apps could be used against them or penalized for traveling across state lines for an abortion. Women will be scrutinized and controlled in ways they have never been before.
Regardless of how one likes to dress it up, ending Roe will go down in history as being a disaster of unmitigated proportions. It is one step closer to Margaret Atwood's worst nightmare.
Yes, yes, yes and yes. This is 100% the way forward.
One thing - those Greeks and Romans and infanticide? Zero archaeological / physical evidence. Even in the supposed designated places. Big doubts as to whether that ever happened.
Share your donations as a reply to this comment, please, so I can keep track!
Leah,
Thank you for your words regarding the Dobbs decision. I love that fact that, though you recognize the goodness of this decision, you emphasize how much work there is to be done to build a genuine culture of life. We need to build a culture where abortion is unthinkable - yes. I donated $100 to my local LifeNetwork crisis pregnancy center.
I'm a regular donor to both the National Diaper Bank Network and In Shifra's Arms, a Jewish pregnancy care center with both pro-life and pro-choice board members. For this occasion I contributed an extra $100 to In Shifra's Arms.
I chipped in another $54 (a recommended amount) to In Shifra's Arms. Money is fungible, of course, but these donation menus are a handy way to see an organization's common estimated costs:
https://jewishpregnancyhelp.org/donate
Thanks! Donated $100 to our local crisis pregnancy center, The Desormeaux Foundation.
I just donated $26.05 to National Diaper Bank Network!
Thanks for doing this, Leah. I donated $25 to the National Diaper Bank Network.
I will be donating $25 to the Safe Harbor Crisis Nursery in WA state and another 25 to a similar organization in Texas when I have identified one that is doing good work.
Thank you so much for doing this! I donated $5 to the Sisters of Life.
A $100 donation was made in your honor to The Cradle, an adoption agency licensed in the states of IL and IN.
https://www.cradle.org/about-cradle
"The Cradle is the only adoption agency in the country with an on-site nursery. It's a safe, neutral place for infants to stay while their parents take the time they need to decide if adoption will be the plan for this child. The nursery also enables The Cradle to place infants whose special medical needs may mean that it takes a bit longer to find them a home that is prepared to help them thrive. We are committed to finding a loving home for every child entrusted to our care.
"In recent years, The Cradle has expanded our scope to include Adoption Learning Partners (ALP), online training for prospective adoptive parents and adoption professionals. Through the power of the internet, ALP has made The Cradle's thorough training convenient and accessible to professionals and families all across the globe."
I don’t know if you’ve already hit $500, but I just donated $15 to “Bella’s” fundraiser at Let Them Live so she can keep her home and her baby!
I donated $50 to the National Diaper Bank Network. My employer also matches my donations, so feel free to count it as $50 or $100 however you think is fair.
Re: “What organization supporting vulnerable parents and children would you recommend and why?” — I’ve recently become a regular blood donor, and while my blood is not going specifically to vulnerable parents and children over other patients, my pro-life convictions are a big part of why I started donating. For me, donating blood is an acknowledgement that we are mutually dependent, that we all have claims on each other, that we have bodies so we can take care of each other. I’ve always wanted to have babies so that I could nurture another life with my body, and (so far) physical motherhood has not been an option for me—but I can nurture people by donating blood *right now*.
Thank you! I had a blood transfusion 3.5 years ago (and can’t donate because of anemia) and I’ve recently had a good friend and a family member both need transfusions. I really appreciate your donations!
Thank you for all you do, Leah! I donated $50 to Our Lady of Hope Clinic, a pro-life, non-profit clinic in Wisconsin.
This is a as close to how I feel about abortion and the national debate of any article I've read. Abortion is a series of failures of more powerful people -- at every level of the culture -- that leaves a dreadful choice to the two vulnerable souls left at the bottom of a sexist and oppressive culture. We could start by saying that any man who is the DNA identified father is responsible for 50% of the burden of raising the child. Monetarily and hopefully in other ways. We have the technology. I have a feeling that would spur a lot of changes immediately.
Abortion, it seems, may never be unthinkable as long as sex is viewed as merely recreational. I can’t imagine abortion becoming unthinkable even if our society does a better job of caring for women until our approach to sex changes. If views of abortion depend on how we understand sex, how can we change our society’s view of sex?
I also made a $25 donation to Sisters of Life :)
Up until now, I haven't questioned that you were engaging in good faith. The New York Times interview and this post *does* make me question if you are willing to discuss abortion honestly.
In the past you've opposed legislation like SB8 in Texas. Here you call for a 50 state ban on abortions. I get that publicly taking a stand against horrific policy branded as 'pro-life' can get you ousted from the pro-life blogosphere. But this is a moment for being honest about policies that are good and ones that will have horrifying outcomes for our democracy *and* maternal health.
And what does a world where abortion is unthinkable look like, actually? We know what it looks like. Wishing for a world where abortion is unthinkable is wishing for a world where women will be forced to endure horrific pregnancy complications due to preexisting conditions. Where women will have to carry a pregnancy to full term for a fetus who will never live, with a higher likelihood for life altering and future-pregnancy-complicating injuries. And it's a world where all women are treated first and foremost as vessels for new life, not as people whose pain and joy and worth is irrefutable.
I hope and believe our nation is capable of crafting reasonable laws now that doing so is possible. I would be lying if I said Roe being overturned now in this politically charged fashion, made me happy. However, I do have a deep faith in the basic capacity for us to come together and make laws that allow for reasonable medical exceptions for the good of the mother and/or the fetus, and exceptions for rape and incest etc.
I absolutely want to see better access to contraception and more comprehensive support for young/poor women who are pregnant to become so ubiquitous that pregnancy, even an unexpected one, won't ever feel like a trap or punishment. I 100% agree that abortion should not ever be the price for full and equal inclusion in society.
It took some digging, but I found a good chart you and Claire may be interested in. The states that have restrictions on abortion after viability in our now “Post-Roe” world are all “pro-choice” states. States that are set to ban abortion entirely are “pro-life”: https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/abortion-policy-absence-roe
This tracks with my experience in pro choice spaces. Most folks I know care deeply about reproductive justice and ensuring economic coercion does not back people into abortions. And they also know that 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions are almost always health related tragedies where we have an obligation to protect women’s access to necessary care while respecting the life she carries.
Sincere question: Do you have a source for statistics about 2nd/3rd trimester abortions being mostly about health complications? I'm not trying to challenge your claim, I'm just curious because I've never heard that before and would be interested to learn more.
I'm glad you led me on a hunt for some real data on this! I've had some time this afternoon to go down the rabbit hole, and I have some hope that my requests to some health stats folks at government agencies will come through this week. In good news, it does look like at least a couple states collect the data necessary to answer this question. A big challenge is comprehensive reporting: do hospitals report inducing labor pre-viability (~21 weeks) as abortion? That's a policy left up to hospital administrators probably, and could skew the abortion stats.
In qualitative surveys that can't be extrapolated, "new information" about either maternal or the fetus' health, and "hurdles to obtaining care" were both very frequently cited. But that's not helpful here, except to say that tragically we will probably see both maternal mortality and third trimester abortions increase in a post-Roe world as more women have to travel farther to obtain care.
I've heard this cited fairly frequently by sources I trust, but always appreciate a push to find real stats. Here's one example of what I've been relying on: https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/06/health/late-term-abortion-explainer/index.html
Also not a stat, but there are many tragic stories that are much like this one: https://twitter.com/SJohnsdottire/status/1540797614945439744 I wish everyone who considers themselves pro-life would read them. Note that she had to travel from New York to Kansas for her procedure, because of abortion laws in "pro-choice" NY, even as her health deteriorated.
I also personally know women who have had tragic late term abortions, and you probably do too.
I don't, actually, but thank you very much for taking the time to find those links. I didn't know the CDC kept stats on abortion (linked in the CNN article); I'll have to dig into those some more.
The data show that most 2nd/3rd trimester abortions are elective and not related to potential or actual health complications.
https://secularprolife.org/2016/10/no-most-late-term-abortions-are-not_13/
https://secularprolife.org/2016/12/more-evidence-that-most-late-term/
Unfortunately this is misleading. Because more than 90% of abortions are done before 13 weeks, it's hard to get a good p value on surveys that break out reasons for abortions that occur later. You can refer to the Guttmacher article they cite here: https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/journals/3711005.pdf
And Leah, this is what makes me question the honesty of your rhetoric in our Post Roe world. I know you do your research. I know you do great policy analysis. I know you understand our political landscape. The MS law is not what is or will be law in MS or any other “pro-life” state.
I seems only fair at this point that I state my preferred position. In my ideal world, comprehensive sex ed and access to contraception, combined with a real push to teach young people and teens that waiting until they are bit older to have sex is wise. These efforts would help massively reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. Then a robust support system for women and families with young children would help eliminate every possible abortion that was being done out of desperation. I want every woman who is willing to carry to term, whether to keep or to give up for adoption, to have access to everything she needs to safely and securely make that decision. As a society I think we need to provide her those resources when needed.
But even in an ideal world there will be times when women who accidently get pregnant will really be adamantly against carrying the baby to term. So I do support abortion on demand until at least 12 weeks and honestly I am ok with it to the 16-18 week mark. Because even though I do genuinely believe that it is immoral and the murder of an innocent life, honestly I would rather the child go strait to God than be borne and delivered by a woman who is going to resent and be distressed by that child's existence. Worse if it also means she won't consider care for the health of the fetus something she needs make good choices about. There are things worse than a quick death. Being hated, neglected and abused are often on that list, especially if it starts in the womb. IMO
Right now 'pro-choice' states are only about 2 weeks off from the reality you describe here. Here in MN we have abortion restrictions after 20 weeks, a solid publicly funded support structure for women, sex ed required. I mean, definitely room to improve (more funds! more comprehensive sex ed!) but overall very aligned with what you describe. Similar in other states like NY, CA, WA, HI, IL... more here: https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/state-policies-later-abortions
Again I am hoping that even in what were pro life States... in the post Roe world, the centrists and moderates are going to rise up and demand a more reasonable stance. The last poll data I heard stated that less than 20% of the population supported a total ban on elective abortion. And less than 20% of the population supported abortion on demand right up into the 3rd Tri-mester. That leaves 60% of the population willing to find some kind of middle ground that is in-between the extremes.
Part of what gives me little hope of this is the 'toe-the-line' approach that has dominated the pro-life movement and allied Republican politicians up to this point, and the way that has persisted now, after Dobbs. Leah's piece in the Times is part of that persistence! If we were going to have good legislation passed in pro-life states there would have been calls well before Dobbs and now, after, for legislation that is scientifically sound, for policies that don't come between women and critical health care, etc etc. But there aren't. There's only celebration and a push to turn more "pro-choice" states into the horrifying TX/AL/LA/MS/SD reality of near complete bans.
One of the things to keep in mind is that more extreme positions "Sell Newpapers" and "Energize the Base" etc. As Andrew Sullivan pointed out recently, it was easy to push excessive laws while Roe was in place. But now the 60% plus of the population who wants a more moderate approach.... well, all their votes are now truly in play.
For example, I really didn't care much about what a politician said on this topic for most of my voting lifetime. Now i am going to care and be looking specifically for person who has moderate sensible views.
Only time will tell how it actually ends up playing out... but if we stop rewarding extremism across the board, not just on this topic, all our lives would get so much better.
Genuine question: what reasonable laws can be crafted now that couldn’t have been crafted before Roe was overturned?
Mississippi’s law bans abortion at 15 weeks except when the mother’s life is in danger, which would have been overturned under Roe.
If the only reasonable laws are ones which permit abortion and the only good faith argument is one that ends in agreeing that abortion ought to be permitted as a matter of choice, then there probably won’t be many pro life people who meet those criteria - but it’s also not a criteria that can credibly claim to be interested in finding common ground or understanding genuine disagreements.
Oops, didn’t realize MS had a six week trigger ban. So won’t be able to assess the outcome of the bill that led to Dobbs!
Wildly, this was the moment I realized that, of course, the writers and advocates of this crafted-to-overturn-Roe legislation of course already knew this.
I truly appreciate you responding! I find the “medical emergency” definition in the Mississippi law to be far too narrow for comfort. The state already has a high maternal mortality rate and I fear we will see an increase in the next 6-9 months. I also didn’t like that the text of the bill includes misinformation about abortion vs pregnancy risks. But I respect that you have a different perspective. Talking policy specifics is always worthwhile. And as far as anti-abortion bills go, MS wasn’t the worst!
So if you are asking me... Roe made it difficult to put any sensible restrictions on abortion. Most of Europe for example only allows abortions after 15/16 weeks for unexpected medical reasons. IE the life of the mother is in danger. Serious genetic defects. Rape/Incest etc. But here most State laws limiting abortion on demand to 16 weeks were fought and struck down under Roe in the past. Personally I wish Roberts had been allowed to craft the Majority opinion... aka, allow a more reasonable cut off date without totally reversing Roe.
Ah! I didn’t see that was Claire before and not you, apologies. Thank *you* for responding.
:) Multiperson discussions are good. Just wanted you to know I had not ignored your question in case you were looking for a specific reply. :)
(Not related to Roe, but related to the questions:) For me, the evils I feel most helpless about are those related to U.S. foreign policy, whether that's been failing to help refugees, leaving the immigration system as an unworkable mess, undermining/deposing other countries' governments, giving money/weapons to dictators, failing to protect Afghans who helped the U.S. military, etc. I've been learning recently about the Iran-Contra affair (and the U.S.' broader involvement in the Middle East during the 1970s-1990s), and gosh, I knew it was crooked, but I didn't know how crooked it was.
Reading the work of writers like you and Erika Bachiochi has really moved the needle for me on abortion, in part because you are consistent and unmoving on focusing on dignity for all instead of punishment. But I want to press you a bit to say more about laws, in the here and now, because the change in law is coming before the change of heart that you are aiming towards.
You want abortion to be illegal in all 50 states. How will cases be investigated? Who will be punished, and to what extent? I don't know about you personally, but Erika Bachiochi has certainly said she supports rape exemptions. In a country where perhaps 1 out of 10 rapes leads to an actual conviction, and those convictions happen far after the rape itself, how would rape exemptions be approved or adjudicated?
I have come much closer to believing in the pro-life movement's vision for the future. But decisions on all of these questions have to happen in the here and now, in the world of today, and I am not hearing anything good or hopeful about these specific questions. And if the path towards this future you want is full of terrible and unjust laws for today, is its foundation built on sand?
It’s hard to pick just one evil, which is depressing. I live in an area that still permits abortion on demand well into the second trimester, and I definitely see welfare advocacy mired in the evil of abortion here. Advocates reject anyone who favors limits on abortion, let alone an almost complete ban, which makes change on abortion and welfare issues seem impossible.
Another thorny thing I come back to over and over is labor rights - I cannot afford to pay much more in food than I am currently paying, but I know that prices now still rely on underpaying and mistreating so many workers along the food production chain. Likewise, I often wish I could have more childcare, but at its current prices it is already unaffordable and even if my income were higher it would still be relying on underpaying workers (mostly women). But yet I still need to feed my family. I do find hope in efforts to raise the minimum wage and provide more worker protections.
I agree with Leah's assessment; however, I don't think outlawing abortion is the answer or even necessary to have fewer abortions. If the U.S. has a broader safety net -- with TANF, the child tax credit, universal health care, paid paternal leave, and birth control, the abortion rates will go down on their own, without any government restrictions. And yes, available birth control is essential, and Justice Thomas's remarks on it from Friday are scary. What pro-life and conservative groups purport about it is untrue.
I think the privacy element in abortion is important, especially now, as women's period tracker apps could be used against them or penalized for traveling across state lines for an abortion. Women will be scrutinized and controlled in ways they have never been before.
Regardless of how one likes to dress it up, ending Roe will go down in history as being a disaster of unmitigated proportions. It is one step closer to Margaret Atwood's worst nightmare.
Yes, yes, yes and yes. This is 100% the way forward.
One thing - those Greeks and Romans and infanticide? Zero archaeological / physical evidence. Even in the supposed designated places. Big doubts as to whether that ever happened.