The War on Women

Shiftless2

Well-known member
There are so many articles about the way that women's rights are being eroded that I figured a new thread was in order.

So let's start with Alabama

AMERICA AFTER ‘ROE’

Alabama’s War on Women

Anti-abortion activists have sought full legal rights for embryos since the Seventies. Today, Alabamians are learning the true cost of that fight, from IVF access to miscarriage management and pregnancy criminalization
BY TESSA STUART

RISTA HARDING’S DAUGHTER was eight weeks old when that police cruiser pulled behind her on the interstate and hit the lights in September 2019. She called her boss at the Little Caesars in Pinson, Alabama, where she’d just been promoted to manager: I’m going to be a little late, but I’m coming in! Don’t panic. Harding’s registration tag was expired. She figured the officer would write her a ticket and she’d be on her way, but when he came back after running her driver’s license, he had handcuffs out.

There was a felony warrant out for her arrest, he said: “Chemical endangerment of a child.” Harding used her most patient customer-service tone to ask the officer if he’d please check again. But there was no mistake, the cop confirmed: He was taking her to the Etowah County Detention Center, almost an hour’s drive away.

“I’m in the back of the cop car just bawling my eyes out, like, ugly-face-snot-bubbles crying,” Harding remembers. She was worried about being away from her newborn, and she was confused: Chemical endangerment of a child? “I think of somebody cooking meth with a baby on their hip,” she says.

She’s right to think that: The Alabama law, passed in 2006, was intended to target those who expose children to toxic chemicals, or worse, explosions, while manufacturing methamphetamine in ad-hoc home labs.

Harding says it took at least eight hours to be booked into a cell that night, and it was more than a week before she was finally allowed to see a judge. She was still leaking breast milk, and desperately missing her two daughters. Her family wasn’t allowed to bring her clean underwear, so every day she washed her one pair, saturated with menstrual blood, in the cell sink, then hung them to dry.

Harding says she eventually learned the warrant for her arrest had been issued because of a urine test taken at a doctor’s visit early in her pregnancy. Sitting alone in her cell, she conjured a vague memory of her OB-GYN warning her local authorities had begun to crack down on weed. The comment had struck her as odd at the time: Nine years earlier, when she was pregnant with her first child, the same doctor at the same hospital had told Harding, who’d smoked both pot and cigarettes before she was pregnant, that she’d rather Harding kick the nicotine than the weed. (Studies are unequivocal about the fact that cigarettes contribute to adverse pregnancy outcomes, but the research on weed is less conclusive, with some doctors arguing it at least has therapeutic benefits, like helping with morning sickness.)

But in the years between her first child and her second, something had changed in certain parts of Alabama. In Etowah County, in 2013, the sheriff, the district attorney, and the head of the local child-welfare agency held a press conference to announce they intended to aggressively enforce that 2006 law. Instead of going after the manufacturers of meth, though, they planned to target pregnant women who used virtually any substance they deemed harmful to a developing fetus.

“If a baby is born with a controlled-substance dependency, the mother is going to jail,” then-Sheriff Todd Entrekin said at the time. Police weren’t required to establish that a child was born with a chemical dependency, though — or even that a fetus experienced any harm — a drug test, a confession, or just an accusation of substance use during pregnancy was enough to arrest women for a first offense that carries a maximum sentence of 10 years. One public defender would later call these “unwinnable cases.”

Over the following decade, Etowah County imprisoned hundreds of mothers — some of whom were detained, before trial, for the rest of their pregnancies, inside one of the most brutal and inhumane prisons in the country, denied access to prenatal care and adequate nutrition, they say — in the name of ....

CONTINUED
 
"Over the following decade, Etowah County imprisoned hundreds of mothers — some of whom were detained, before trial, for the rest of their pregnancies, inside one of the most brutal and inhumane prisons in the country, denied access to prenatal care and adequate nutrition, they say — in the name of .... " #1
Economist and Freakonomics co-author Steven Levett recognized the drop in violent crime that followed a few decades (one human generation) after Roe v. Wade. Levett suggests the children that were raised by mothers that were not eager to rear children produced citizens more prone to committing crime.

While white-colllar layoffs are routine in this economy, blue-collar workers are in short supply, leading to the low unemployment rate.

Perhaps the misogynist Alabama policy makers hope that by nutritionally stunting mental growth this way (denied prenatal nutrition), it may help to relieve the blue-collar worker shortage.

Or perhaps they're just %$#@ bags.
 
pCXefL2.png


Don't forget proper sex ed - you have to wonder how many girls have ended up pregnant because "everyone knows you can't get pregnant your first time" or some other equally inane bit of playground wisdom.
 

Washington State Governor Inslee directs DOH to affirm emergency abortion care access at state hospitals​


June 11, 2024

Gov. Jay Inslee issued a directive today requiring the Department of Health to affirm that hospitals in Washington state have a legal requirement to provide emergency abortion services.
Inslee’s directive comes as the nation nears the two-year anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Dobbs ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade. This month, the U.S. Supreme Court is poised to rule on another extreme anti-choice case known as Idaho v. United States and Moyle v. United States. This case out of Idaho would allow politicians to jail emergency room doctors for providing emergency abortion care.
“Ideological politicians are relentlessly interfering with the most private and crucial health care decisions a doctor and their patient will ever make, and now they’re doing so even when the life of a mother hangs in the balance,” Inslee said. “Fortunately, we’ve taken numerous steps in Washington to make sure patients in Washington are not subject to these horrors.



Washington S., diagonally and ideologically opposite Washington DC.

If federal U.S. law were first passed, & then fully enforced, against Liberty-usurping martial oppression, would any U.S. government policy makers survive?

Who?
 
"christo-facist" #7
I'm not a Christian.
I probably would not be deemed religious by those that deem themselves to be.

None the less some of the most magnificent human beings I've ever had the privilege to know well qualify as Christian.
Not for wearing a huge crucifix from gaudy chain around their neck, but by tenaciously applying the most noble principles of Christianity in their daily lives.

The United States is in mortal danger. The fate that determines our Constitutional survival or termination could occur before year end.
When the United States is in danger, the solar system is in danger, for those on the planet, and those in orbit as well.

Those that associate with religion not for religious fulfillment but to corrupt the power it has earned, bending that power to their own nefarious purpose compound the disgrace of their own cause.

It is a lamentable semantic quirk that the political faction we call our "religious-right" would be more accurately described as the "religious-wrong". Sorry J.C., you deserve better than them.
 
Associated Press

An anti-abortion group in South Dakota sues to take an abortion rights initiative off the ballot​

JACK DURA / Mon, June 17, 2024 at 4:18 PM EDT

 
292355529_2064193467101710_135358149917672516_n.jpg



Pro Lifer: Well the mother should just give the baby up for adoption if she doesn’t want the baby

Me: So who will adopt the baby?

PL: I don’t know there’s lots of couples who want to adopt

Me: Do you know any couple who is waiting to adopt?

PL: Um well not personally but like I know there’s lots of people waiting to adopt.

Me: Do you know what a domestic adoption costs?

PL: I don’t know. $15,000 maybe?

Me: The average cost of domestic adoption in the United States is $70,000 if you go through a private agency.

PL: Oh I didn’t realize it was that much

Me: Yep it’s really expensive. It can be more if you want a newborn straight from the hospital. Up to $120,000.

PL: Well all life is precious.

Me: it really is. I’ve adopted through foster care and am currently a licensed foster parent. Would you be interested in becoming a foster parent yourself?

PL: Oh no I couldn’t do it.

Me: Why not?

PL: It would just be too much for me right now.

Me: Why is that?

PL: It would be too hard to handle all the issues that came with it. I’ve heard horror stories.

Me: Yep it can be extremely difficult. But what if I told you that you were required by law to become a foster parent?

PL: what?

Me: what if you had to become a foster parent by law?

PL: they would never do that. That would never happen.

Me: Well, if a woman is forced to bear a child she doesn’t want, and she goes ahead and has that child, someone has to care for the child either through adoption or foster care.
You have to do one of those two things.

PL: But I don’t want any more kids.

Me: So you don’t want someone forcing you to have a child in your home that you don’t want or aren’t able to care for?

PL: no, that’s not my job to raise someone else’s child.

There it is, folks. Have the baby, but we don’t want anything to do with it afterwards.

But, let’s ban abortion…
 
"Me: what if you had to become a foster parent by law?
PL: they would never do that. That would never happen.
Me: Well, if a woman is forced to bear a child she doesn’t want, and ..." #10
Not a perfect, air-tight argument, but close enough. Compulsory child birth is bad enough, and precisely without embellishment what the Dobbs decision imposes.
Republicans may still be pro-choice on child-rearing, the birth mother still legally empowered to make that choice.

Sadly, Republicans in generations past earned a reputation for sincerely supporting smaller, less intrusive, less authoritarian government. It's called "political conservatism".

In more recent generations Republicans still (falsely) claim the conservative banner, for the prestige legitimate conservatism deserves. BUT !!

In that regard today's Republicans are imposters, frauds. They're not political conservatives. They're unhinged radicals, with no holds barred tactics including conspiratorial lies, perjury, and partisanship above citizenship.
 
Project 2025 #12

Proposed right-wing plan to reshape the U.S. federal government​

Project 2025
Project 2025, also known as the Presidential Transition Project, is a collection of right-wing policy proposals from The Heritage Foundation to reshape the U.S. federal government in the event of a Republican victory in the 2024 U.S. presidential election. Established in 2022, the project aims to recruit tens of thousands of conservatives to the District of Columbia to replace existing federal civil servants—whom Republicans characterize as part of the "deep state"—and to further the objectives of the next Republican president. It adopts a maximalist version of the unitary executive theory, a disputed interpretation of Article II of the Constitution of the United States, which asserts that the president has absolute power over the executive branch upon inauguration.
Project 2025 envisions widespread changes across the government, particularly economic and social policies and the role of the federal government and its agencies. The plan proposes slashing funding for the Department of Justice (DOJ), dismantling the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Department of Homeland Security (DHS), sharply reducing environmental and climate change regulations to favor fossil fuel production, eliminating the Department of Commerce, and ending the independence of federal agencies such as the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The blueprint seeks to institute tax cuts, though its writers disagree on the wisdom of protectionism. Project 2025 recommends abolishing the Department of Education, whose programs would be either transferred to other agencies, or terminated. Funding for climate research would be cut while the National Institutes of Health (NIH) would be reformed along conservative principles. The Project urges government to explicitly reject abortion as health care and eliminate the Affordable Care Act's coverage of emergency contraception. The Project seeks to infuse the government with elements of Christianity. It proposes criminalizing pornography, removing legal protections against discrimination based on sexual or gender identity, and terminating diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, as well as affirmative action.
Project contributor Jeffrey Clark advises the future president to immediately deploy the military for domestic law enforcement and direct the DOJ to pursue Donald Trump's adversaries by invoking the Insurrection Act of 1807. The Project recommends the arrest, detention, and deportation of undocumented immigrants. It promotes capital punishment and the speedy "finality" of such sentences. Project director Paul Dans, explained that Project 2025 is "systematically preparing to march into office and bring a new army, aligned, trained, and essentially weaponized conservatives ready to do battle against the deep state." Dans admitted it was "counterintuitive" to recruit so many to join the government to shrink it, but pointed out the need for a future president to "regain control" of the government. Although the project does not promote a specific presidential candidate, many contributors have close ties to Trump and his 2024 campaign.
Critics of Project 2025 have described it as an authoritarian Christian nationalist movement and a path for the United States to become an autocracy. Several experts in law have indicated that it would undermine the rule of law and the separation of powers. Some conservatives and Republicans also criticized the plan, for example in the contexts of centralizing power, climate change, and foreign trade.
More from Wikipedia
 
Worse than Project 2025

Project Blitz is a related but distinct initiative from Project 2025, also driven by the Christian Right in the United States. Project Blitz is a coordinated effort to introduce and pass conservative Christian legislation at the state and local levels, with the ultimate goal of reshaping the country's legal and social framework.

Project Blitz focuses on:

1. *Religious freedom bills*: Allowing businesses and individuals to deny services based on religious beliefs.

2. *Anti-abortion legislation*: Restricting or banning abortion access.

3. *Christian education initiatives*: Promoting Christian teachings in public schools.

4. *Opposition to LGBTQ+ rights*: Limiting rights and protections for LGBTQ+ individuals.

5. *National motto displays*: Displaying "In God We Trust" in public spaces.

Project Blitz provides model legislation, talking points, and strategic guidance to conservative lawmakers and activists, aiming to create a wave of legislation advancing Christian conservative values.

While both projects share similar goals, Project Blitz is a more tactical and immediate initiative, focusing on concrete legislative victories, whereas Project 2025 is a broader, long-term strategy to reshape the political and social landscape.

 
de·spair (dĭ-spâr)
intr.v. de·spaired, de·spair·ing, de·spairs
1. To lose all hope: despaired of reaching shore safely.
2. To be overcome by a sense of futility or defeat.

[Middle English despeiren, from Old French desperer, from Latin dēspērāre : dē-, de- + spērāre, to hope; see spē- in the Appendix of Indo-European roots. N., from Middle English despeir, from Anglo-Norman, from Old French desperer, to despair.]
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition copyright ©2022 by HarperCollins Publishers. All rights reserved.
 
women held captive #16

a) Yes.
b) Why?
Sadism? The shear joy of imposing ones will on others? That would explain it. But it's not the only possible explanation. I sense there's a missing puzzle piece here.
If sadism is their cover story, what more shameful explanation are they trying to hide?
 
Because they realize that abortion bans are unenforceable if a woman can simply go to another state. [That assumes that the woman can afford to do so which is why abortion bans will disproportionately affect the poor.]

That said, Texas has tried to block interstate travel for individuals seeking abortions or, in the case of parents with transgender children, seeking gender affirming care.

240312_Limited-Abortion-Coverage-Due-to-Bans-Hyde-Amendment_FI_V3.png
 
Because they realize that abortion bans are unenforceable if a woman can simply go to another state. S2 #18
Isn't there a Project 2025 connection here?

I deduce the ultimate Republican party ambition is to render the entire U.S. population as mal-contented as they are.

btw:
Are Republicans genuinely not smart enough to understand, banning abortion today means more Democrat voters a few decades in the future? The math too complicated for them?
 
Are Republicans genuinely not smart enough to understand, banning abortion today means more Democrat voters a few decades in the future? The math too complicated for them?
I doubt they've ever heard of the "Roe Effect". But even if they have I'm sure they're planning on setting things up in such a manner that it will be almost impossible to reverse most of what they want to do.
 
Back
Top