General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe End Of A Woman's Right To Choose. How did we lose? T.R.A.P.
In state after state, women have already effectively lost the right to choose.
Sooner rather than later SCOTUS will be hearing some vital cases.
First up:
Oklahoma's effective ban on chemically induced abortions:
<snip>
But first in line at the Supreme Court has been a dispute over whether states may restrict how doctors prescribe medications that are used to induce abortions in the first weeks of pregnancy.
The legislatures in Oklahoma, Texas, Ohio and several other states have adopted laws that require doctors to follow the Food and Drug Administration's protocols for the use of "any abortion-inducing drug." These laws forbid doctors to prescribe medications for "off-label use."
Sponsors of the laws said they wanted to protect the health of women. But medical experts and supporters of abortion rights said the laws would in effect ban medication abortions because the FDA protocol is outdated and conflicts with current medical practice.
<snip>
When doctors sued to challenge the state law, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional last year in a three-paragraph opinion. The state's attorney general appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court and argued that state judges had invalidated a reasonable law designed to regulate the safe practice of medicine.
In June, the justices took an unusual step. They tentatively agreed to take up the Oklahoma case, but first asked the state court to clarify whether the 2011 law "prohibits
the use of misoprostol in conjunction with mifepristone."
In Tuesday's opinion, the Oklahoma court said the law, as written, does prohibit the use of the second drug. It "effectively bans all medication abortions" under current practice, the court said. The judges explained that misoprostol was an abortion-inducing drug and noted that FDA had not approved its use for that purpose.
<snip>
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-court-abortions-20131030,0,5448674.story#axzz2jKZy5F42
The last major abortion case in front of the SCOTUS was in 2007. We lost. The court upheld the 2003 ban on "partial birth" abortions.
More on the Oklahoma case by Linda Greenhouse in the NYT in Sept of this year- excellent article:
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, author of the 5-to-4 opinion in June that struck down the Defense of Marriage Act, may well be a hero to the gay rights community, and deservedly so. But hes also the author of the 5-to-4 opinion that upheld the federal ban on so-called partial birth abortion back in 2007, and abortion-rights advocates have viewed with something close to dread the prospect that he could play a similarly decisive role in the Supreme Courts next abortion case.
That case has arrived.
Its understandable if you havent heard of Cline v. Oklahoma Coalition for Reproductive Justice, which has received relatively little attention since the court accepted it on June 27, the day after the term ended. The lack of attention is itself understandable.
The case is an appeal by the state of Oklahoma from a ruling by its Supreme Court striking down a law that limits doctors ability to prescribe the pills used to terminate early pregnancies. The medical abortion regimen, often referred to as RU-486, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2000 as a safe and effective alternative to surgical abortion early in the first trimester. It has been used since then by close to two million American women, currently about 200,000 a year out of some 1.2 million abortions performed annually. The Oklahoma law doesnt ban the medical procedure. Rather, it requires doctors to follow the dosage and other instructions on the F.D.A. label. Viewed outside its context in the battle over abortion, the law looks perfectly sensible, a routine state regulation of medical practice. (Spoiler alert: it isnt.)
<snip>
As abortion clinics are forced to close because of onerous state regulations (54 clinics in 27 states have closed in the last three years, and many women live hundreds of miles from the nearest provider) and as women entering clinics often have to run a gauntlet of protesters seeking to counsel them (in its new term, the Supreme Court will hear a First Amendment challenge to a Massachusetts bubble zone law that keeps speakers 35 feet away from the entrance to a reproductive health care facility), medical abortion offers an end-run around the obstacles that for years have been a core part of opposition strategy.
<snip>
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/04/the-next-abortion-case-is-here/
There are a lot of potential cases in the pipeline. TX has now moved to the top of the list. Whether Roe is actually voided within the next couple of years or not, a woman's right to choose has effectively been gutted. I think the reversal of Roe is near inevitable unless one of the right wing Justices retires or croaks. Should it be reversed, the nightmare of women losing so much ground, grows exponentially worse as state after state criminalizes abortion.
Oh, T.R.A.P: Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trap_laws#TRAP_laws
cali
(114,904 posts)el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)The Supremes are going to do what they want, unfortunately. There's no real pressure we can bring against them.
Bryant
cali
(114,904 posts)el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)Certainly it seems like a pretty big step towards reversing Roe v Wade. Maybe people have a hard time conceptualizing what that would mean.
Bryant
cali
(114,904 posts)It's terrifying and I think that it extends well beyond abortion itself- as if that isn't enough.
ananda
(28,868 posts)..
cali
(114,904 posts)CrispyQ
(36,482 posts)The voter ID laws were recently changed & women are having difficulty at the polls if the name on their ID doesn't exactly match the polling records.
http://keranews.org/post/new-voter-id-law-forces-governor-candidate-wendy-davis-sign-affidavit-vote
cali
(114,904 posts)csziggy
(34,136 posts)And for those which use the federal ID standards. You have to take in every piece of paperwork that proves your legal name. Birth certificates are required in most cases. If you married and changed your name, you have to take your marriage certificate to show why your name is different from your birth certificate. If you divorced or your husband died and remarried, you have to take in the divorce decree or death certificate.
The big thing in Texas is the requirement that the voter ID and driver's license match exactly. And since sometimes the individual is not given a choice in the format of the name on the driver's license, that can cause problems.
I'd have trouble in Texas even though I never changed my name. My driver's license reads First Middle Last - for everything else I use First M. Last and that is what is on my voter's card. I had no choice in the format of my name on my driver's license - that is what Florida requires to be used. The difference between a middle initial and a spelled out name could cost me the right to vote if Florida follows Texas in their efforts to block votes.
We all need to watch out for crap like this!
spanone
(135,848 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)spanone
(135,848 posts)that's my point.
cali
(114,904 posts)and employed long term thinking and a two pronged approach with both outrageous clearly unconstitutional laws with cumbersome regulation.
I don't know what the pro-choice side could have done differently.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)demmiblue
(36,865 posts)sybylla
(8,515 posts)I presume because there are "snips" all over the place that you didn't just write this yourself. I'd love to share it if you can give me a link.
cali
(114,904 posts)I hate that we're fighting old battles over and over again.
ohheckyeah
(9,314 posts)it's the same people fighting the battles over and over again. The younger generation hasn't picked up the banner and joined or taken the fight. If the people this really affects - young men and women can't be bothered, I'm not sure I can be bothered any longer myself. I haven't been able to get pregnant for 30 years due to surgery. As horrible as it was, things just may have to go back to the ways of old for people to wake up. Apathy, laziness, and abstinence only programs are in great part to blame.
CrispyQ
(36,482 posts)I listened to two young women carry on about how angry they were at the comments the repub men were making. Remember, 'legitimate rape,' & 'women can just shut that down." One of them is the daughter of a friend, so she 'friended' me on Facebook & I saw that she had 'liked' Mitt Romney. WTF? Can she not put two & two together?
and therein lies the problem.
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)Just for girls.
Watch this thread sink.
cali
(114,904 posts)and it's even more than what you point out. the ramifications of this are enormous.
uponit7771
(90,347 posts)....negatives the guy has it should be put to rest ...
bullwinkle428
(20,629 posts)K&R.
niyad
(113,434 posts)women not only continues, it seems to be accelerating.
cali
(114,904 posts)among other things, this is about the oppression of the poor and lower middle class.
lunasun
(21,646 posts)Just heard a story on radio about low income in TX trying to get abortions and the great expenses and travel that they have to endure now. In many cases they can not afford it.
whttevrr
(2,345 posts)niyad
(113,434 posts)imagine how naive we were to think that society would evolve, not devolve.
whttevrr
(2,345 posts)niyad
(113,434 posts)It is very sad.
I read stories last year about young women in Texas going to Mexico to get Over The Counter Medicines that can chemically abort a fetus. I hope the Supreme Court does not drag this out very long.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)maybe there's not much we can do about this beyond raising awareness, but that's still something.
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)They'll be able to pay doctors to declare their "miscarriage" natural, or fly to countries where abortion is legal.
If the wives and daughters of the wealthy were hurt by this crusade, it would have nowhere near the traction it does. But money grants them workarounds.
cali
(114,904 posts)it'll just be more of the growing divisions. Not just rich and middle class women v lower middle class women and poor women, but red v. blue states and to some degree, men v women.
Ugh.
lunasun
(21,646 posts)An overall assault on every woman's right
esp the lower class who can not afford to "get around it"
NOT that any one should have to do that anyway!!!!!
leftyladyfrommo
(18,869 posts)tell me that the fight to keep abortion rights was just beginning.
I bet she had no idea it would go on at a fever pitch for the next 30 years.
And we do seem to be losing. Having the right to an abortion is meaningless if there is no place to go to get one. 30 year's ago a woman could go to Mexico or to Oregon. Those were our choices. Or you could go to a back alley some where.
whttevrr
(2,345 posts)I cannot imagine what it would be like to be a woman.
Fuck...
I hope 2014 fares better for those in this situation. Almost every day I see something that makes me so grateful to be living in a blue state. These red state laws are like...
rockbluff botanist
(61 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)furthermore, a state could make traveling out of state to obtain an abortion illegal.
Yes, women with financial resources will always be able to get a safe abortion.
niyad
(113,434 posts)leftyladyfrommo
(18,869 posts)I don't think they ask a whole lot of questions.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)If they just ban it in one state, then yes you can go to another state. The Constitution means states can not generally ban travel to another state.
But they could pass a law such that you get arrested when you return to the state.
For example, until recently Lotteries were illegal in North Carolina but legal in Virginia. A whole lot of Virginia lottery retailers near the border got a whole lot of business from people with North Carolina license plates.
So North Carolina made it illegal to possess a lottery ticket in North Carolina. They couldn't stop people from going to Virginia, but they could go after people who did.
An anti-abortion state could make abortion illegal, and then require women to medically document that any miscarriage was 'natural'. So if she goes to another state to get an abortion, she can't be arrested for that. But she could be arrested for not having the right documentation.
christx30
(6,241 posts)personal liberty, they sure do love restricting things. And any attempt to stop them from restricting our rights is a violation of their religious rights.
historylovr
(1,557 posts)kiva
(4,373 posts)that part of the problem is generational. I graduated from high school four months after the Roe v Wade decision; the previous year, a friend of mine was forced to leave high school because she was pregnant. She got some classes from a teacher who visited housebound students (don't remember what they were called); she was allowed to return after her baby was born, but because not all classes were available via the homeschool teacher, my friend didn't have enough credits to graduate with our class.
A decade before that, my sister-in-law was kicked out of high school and not allowed to return because she had a child.
Being an unwed mother was still a stigma at that point, socially, financially, and in pretty much every other way - that was changing, but still present. Parents refused to allow their pregnant daughters to live with them because it might cause problems for younger brothers or sisters, and talked about the problem in whispers.
When abortions because legal we all breathed a sign of relief because we knew that if birth control failed we still had an option that would allow us to get an education and not deal with being (using today's terminology) slut shamed.
Today that stigma is gone - pregnant high school girls can be cheerleaders, schools have day care centers, parents boast about their grandchildren no matter the marital status...and overall that's all a good thing. The result, however, is that many young women do not see abortion as necessary and see no reason to worry about its legality.
When I'm feeling particularly paranoid I wonder if that social acceptance of single motherhood will continue if abortion is made legal, or if women will again be pushed into marital morality.
haele
(12,660 posts)It's partially economic and mostly political. You can't rule over a "kingdom" successfully if you have a high number of recognized citizens that aren't effectively employed.
If women are pretty much relegated back to the "home front" because of risks inherent in their reproductive system for up to half their adult life, their rights as citizens can be easily be legally linked to some form of family or spousal patronage that would be required to support them while they were bearing and raising children.
Historically, "rulers" that oversaw that sort of legal status for women didn't feel the need to worry about more than half their population - only needed to worry about the half that legally "counted". It's an easy political out - much easier to focus on material gains for a relatively few men to "support their families" instead of social gains - income equality, or education, or health and environmental standards - that way.
Priest-Kings and other hierarchal based organizations are especially prone to taking the easy, short-term political options - and the fewer legal citizens who can call them out, the better. So relegating women to second-class dependent status along with children, disabled, and elderly - and potentially bringing back indentured servitude/prison slavery to "take care" of any excess male population - is the most efficient way for a Priest-King to gain and retain power.
Haele
DLevine
(1,788 posts)gopiscrap
(23,761 posts)SCOTUS used to take a dim view at attempts at circumventing their rulings...why won't they be vigilant again?
whttevrr
(2,345 posts)Republicans are showing their sadism with these laws.