Archives for category: Gender
« Older Entries

“Democracy”: The Theological Politics of Abortion

By dianeravitch
May 11, 2024 //
57

Our anonymous reader “Democracy” summarizes the legal and religious disputes over abortion, which center on the question, “When does life begin?” And a second question: “Should believers be allowed to impose their views on others?”

Democracy writes:

In Roe v. Wade (1973), Justice Harry Blackmun researched – and struggled with – the question, when does human life begin?

The majority decision in Roe noted this:

“The Constitution does not define ‘person’ in so many words. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains three references to ‘person.’ The first, in defining ‘citizens,’ speaks of ‘persons born or naturalized in the United States’” The word also appears both in the Due Process Clause and in the Equal Protection Clause. ‘Person’ is used in other places in the Constitution: in the listing of qualifications for Representatives and Senators, in the Emolument Clause, in the provision outlining qualifications for the office of President, and the superseded Fugitive Slave Clause 3; and in the Fifth, Twelfth, and Twenty-second Amendments, as well as in 2 and 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only POSTNATALLY. None indicates that it has any possible pre-natal application. [Emphasis mine]

In that case, the state of Texas made claim that human life begins at conception.

The Texas Court said this:

“Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.”

The Supreme Court decision went on:

“There has always been strong support for the view that life does not begin until live birth. This was the belief of the Stoics. It appears to be the predominant, though not the unanimous, attitude of the Jewish faith.  It may be taken to represent also the position of a large segment of the Protestant community, insofar as that can be ascertained; organized groups that have taken a formal position on the abortion issue have generally regarded abortion as a matter for the conscience of the individual and her family.  As we have noted, the common law found greater significance in quickening. Physicians and their scientific colleagues have regarded that event with less interest and have tended to focus either upon conception, upon live birth, or upon the interim point at which the fetus becomes ‘viable,’ that is, potentially able to live outside the mother’s womb, albeit with artificial aid. Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks.”

This was where abortion rights and “the right to life” stood, until Samuel Alito and his Republican Taliban colleagues imposed their narrow religious beliefs on the rest of American in Dobbs v. Jackson (2022). 

When Alito’s Dobbs draft leaked in the media, political analyst Ron Brownstein wrote thisi n May, 2022, in describing what the Supreme Court religious zealots were about to do:

“Alito’s draft, if finalized, would place the GOP-appointed Supreme Court majority firmly on a collision course with the priorities and preferences of the racially and culturally diverse younger generations born since 1980, who now constitute a majority of all Americans and who overwhelmingly support abortion rights…That shift, which Trump hastened with his overt appeals to the racial and social grievances of the most culturally conservative white Americans, has fueled the increasing volatility and belligerence of modern politics—and it only stands to intensify…For decades, a majority of Americans have supported legalized abortion in at least some circumstances. Opposition to overturning Roe v. Wade hit 69 percent in a CNN survey earlier this year, and 61 percent in a poll released by the nonpartisan Public Religion Research Institute on Tuesday. In the PRRI poll, 64 percent of respondents said abortion should remain legal in all (28 percent) or most (36 percent) circumstances…The biggest exception to this trend: A large majority of white evangelical Americans, a cornerstone GOP constituency, oppose legal abortion.”

NPR reported this in early May, 2022:

“6 in 10 U.S. adults (61%) say that abortion should be legal in most or all cases…While the rate of abortions increased significantly in the decade after Roe v. Wade, it has since decreased to below the 1973 level…Pregnancy and childbirth are far more dangerous than getting an abortion, according to data from the CDC…Over 90% of abortions happen in the first trimester (by 13 weeks)…Medical researchers agree a fetus is not capable of experiencing pain until the third trimester, somewhere between 29 or 30 weeks…More than 60% of abortion patients have a religious affiliation.”

The Guttmacher Institute, “a leading research and policy organization committed to advancing sexual and reproductive health and rights in the United States,” reports these data related to abortion:

“About 61% of abortions are obtained by women who have one or more children…The reasons women give for having an abortion underscore their understanding of the responsibilities of parenthood and family life. Three-fourths of women cite concern for or responsibility to other individuals; three-fourths say they cannot afford a child; three-fourths say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or the ability to care for dependents; and half say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner…Fifty-four percent of women who have abortions had used a contraceptive method (usually the condom or the pill) during the month they became pregnant.”

It would appear — from the data — that the conservative Supreme Court members AND the Republican Party are at war with women, and especially POOR women.

More Guttmacher data:

“About half of American women will have an unintended pregnancy, and nearly one-third will have an abortion, by age 45.

• The overall U.S. unintended pregnancy rate remained stagnant between 1994 and 2006, but unintended pregnancy increased 50% among poor women, while decreasing 29% among higher-income women.

• Overall, the abortion rate decreased 8% between 2000 and 2008, but abortion increased 18% among poor women, while decreasing 28% among higher-income women.

• Nine in 10 abortions occur in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy.

• A broad cross section of U.S. women have abortions:

  • 58% are in their 20s;
  • 61% have one or more children;
  • 56% are unmarried and not cohabiting;
  • 69% are economically disadvantaged; and
  • 73% report a religious affiliation.”

Republicans are finding out that the dystopian world they have created is not popular, and represents a clear and present danger to ALL civil liberties in the American republic.

Here’s how Margaret Atwood explained it in The Atlantic (May 13, 2022):

“When does a fertilized human egg become a full human being or person?…The hard line of today’s anti-abortion activists is at ‘conception,’ the moment at which a cluster of cells becomes ‘ensouled.”

 “But any such judgment depends on a religious belief—namely, the belief in souls. Not everyone shares such a belief. But all, it appears, now risk being subjected to laws formulated by those who do. That which is a sin within a certain set of religious beliefs is to be made a crime for all.”

“It ought to be simple: If you believe in ‘ensoulment’ at conception, you should not get an abortion, because to do so is a sin within your religion. If you do not so believe, you should not—under the Constitution—be bound by the religious beliefs of others. But should the Alito opinion become the newly settled law, the United States looks to be well on the way to establishing a state religion…Massachusetts had an official religion in the 17th century. In adherence to it, the Puritans hanged Quakers.”

“The Alito opinion purports to be based on America’s Constitution. But it relies on English jurisprudence from the 17th century, a time when a belief in witchcraft caused the death of many innocent people. The Salem witchcraft trials were trials—they had judges and juries—but they accepted “spectral evidence,” in the belief that a witch could send her double, or specter, out into the world to do mischief. Thus, if you were sound asleep in bed, with many witnesses, but someone reported you supposedly doing sinister things to a cow several miles away, you were guilty of witchcraft. You had no way of proving otherwise.”

As Ben Franklin was to have said when asked what kind of government the Founders had created,

“A republic, if you can keep it.”

Categories Democracy, Elections, Gender, Religion

Florida: Behind the Duelling Decisions About Abortion

By dianeravitch
May 4, 2024 //
18

Since the Florida Supreme Court released dual decisions about abortion, there’s been some confusion. Five of the seven justices were appointed by DeSantis.

One decision upheld a fifteen-week ban on abortion, with the understanding that it would be superseded on May 1 by a six-week ban, already signed into law by Governor DeSantis. A six-week ban is the equivalent of a total ban, since few (if any) women realize they are pregnant at that point. The ban was approved by a vote of 6-1.

The second decision allowed a referendum this November that would guarantee the protection of abortion rights in the state constitution. This decision was approved by a vote of 4-3.

Are these two decisions in conflict? Well, yes. And there is a catch. The state constitution includes a guarantee that “all natural persons’ have a right to life and liberty.” Are fetuses “natural persons?” Some of Florida’s Supreme Court justices think so.

Our reader Democracy espies a scheme behind the scene:

In the oral arguments over the Florida abortion amendment to the state constitution, the chief justice of the Florida Supremes – Carlos G. Muñiz – asked specifically about fetal rights. As Bloomberg reported,

“Florida Supreme Court Chief Justice Carlos G. Muñiz asked during Feb. 7 oral arguments on an amendment that would protect abortion in the state whether the Florida Constitution’s guarantee that all ‘natural persons’ be ‘equal before the law’ can apply to fetuses. Muñiz questioned whether justices must first decide this before determining whether the proposed amendment protecting abortion until fetal viability was misleading.”

Meredith L. Sasso, a DeSantis appointee, raised the issue of fetal rights in voting NOT to allow the amendment on the ballot.  Renatha Francis, another DeSantis appointee, did the same.

Jamie R. Grosshans, ALSO appointed by DeSantis, wrote the opinion finding that in Florida privacy does NOT apply to abortion, also said this when voting AGAINST the abortion amendment’s placement on the ballot:

“The voter may think this amendment results in settling this issue once and for all. It does not.”

Is it too cynical to believe that the Florida Supreme Court would approve a referendum that they intend to invalidate?

Categories Cruelty, DeSantis, Disruption, Elections, Ethics, Extremism, Florida, Gender

Breaking News: Arizona Repeals 1864 Abortion Law!

By dianeravitch
May 1, 2024 //
11

The highly restrictive ban on abortion passed in 1864 was repealed by the Arizona Senate today, as two Republicans broke with their party to join all Democratic Senators.

Arizona lawmakers secured enough votes on Wednesday to repeal an abortion ban that first became law when Abraham Lincoln was president and a half-century before women won the right to vote.

A bill to repeal the law appeared to be on track to narrowly pass in the Republican-controlled State Senate with the support of every Democratic senator and two Republicans who were breaking with anti-abortion conservatives in their own party. If it passes as expected, it would go to Gov. Katie Hobbs, a Democrat, who is expected to sign it.

The vote taking place Wednesday afternoon was the culmination of a fevered effort to repeal the law that has made abortion a central focus of Arizona’s politics.

The New York Times reported:

Two Republican state senators, T.J. Shope and Shawnna Bolick, joined with Democrats on Wednesday to force that repeal bill to a vote over furious attempts by far-right Republicans to block it.

The 1864 law had gathered dust on the books for decades. But it exploded into an election-year flashpoint three weeks ago when a 4-2 decision by the State Supreme Court, whose justices are all Republican-appointed, said the ban could now be enforced because of the overturning of Roe v. Wade.

Before casting her pivotal vote, Ms. Bolick stood up and began a long, deeply personal speech describing her own three challenging pregnancies, including one that ended with an abortion procedure in her first trimester because the fetus was not viable.

“Would Arizona’s pre-Roe law have allowed me to have this medical procedure even though my life wasn’t in danger?” she asked.

Categories Arizona, Gender

Forced Birth Laws Are Religious and Thus Violate the Constitution

By dianeravitch
May 1, 2024 //
10

Florida’s six-week ban on abortion went into effect today.

A reader who calls him/herself Quickwrit posted the following excellent thoughts about anti-abortion laws:

THE NINTH AMENDMENT that gives Clarence Thomas the constitutional right to live in an interracial marriage also gives women the constitutional right to abortion: The 9th Amendment says that rights, like the right to interracial marriage and the right to abortion, do not have to be stated in the Constitution in order to be constitutional rights because The Ninth Amendment says: “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

The current Supreme Court ruling on abortion not only violates the 9th Amendment, it violates the religious rights of many citizens. The ruling is supportive of the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church to which the six majority Justices belong.

The Bible gives commandments on a very, very long list of more than 600 laws on everything from divorce to gluttony or stealing — yet the Bible says nothing about abortion. Why is that? If abortion was even as important as gluttony and stealing, it would have been mentioned in the Bible.

Out of more than 600 laws of Moses, which includes the 10 Commandments, NONE — not one — comments on abortion. In fact, the Mosaic law in Exodus 21:22-25 clearly shows that causing the abortion of a fetus is NOT MURDER. Exodus 21:22-25 says that if a woman has a miscarriage as the result of an altercation with a man, the man who caused miscarriage should only pay a fine that is to be determined by the woman’s husband, but if the woman dies, the man is to be executed: “If a man strives with a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet there is no harm to the woman, he shall be punished according to what the woman’s husband determines and he shall pay as the judges determine.” So, the miscarriage is treated like the destruction of property, not murder.

There are Christian denominations that allow abortion in most instances; these Christian denominations include the United Church of Christ and the Presbyterian Church USA. The United Methodist Church and Episcopal churches allow abortion in cases of medical necessity, and the United Universalist Association also allows abortion.

Most of the opposition to abortion comes from fundamentalist and evangelical Christians who believe that a full-fledged human being is created at the instant of conception. But that is a religious BELIEF and religious beliefs cannot be recognized by the government under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of our Constitution. Moreover, the belief that a fetus is a human person, complete with a soul, is a Christian interpretation of the Jewish Bible — the Old Testament. But, Jewish scholars whose ancestors wrote the Old Testament and who know best what the words mean say that is a wrong interpretation of their writings.

Christians largely base their view that a fetus is a complete human being and that abortion is murder on the Jewish Bible’s Psalm 139: “You knit me together in my mother’s womb…You watched me as I was being formed in utter seclusion as I was woven together in the dark of the womb. You saw me before I was born.”

But who better to translate the accurate meaning of Psalm 139 than the Jews who wrote it? And Jewish scholars point out that Psalm 139 merely describes the development of a fetus and does not mean that the fetus has a soul and is a person. In fact, the Jewish Talmud explains that for the first 40 days of a woman’s pregnancy, the fetus is considered “mere fluid” and is just part of the mother’s body, like an appendix or liver. Only after the fetus’s head emerges from the womb at birth is the baby considered a “nefesh” – Hebrew for “soul” or “spirit” – a human person.

The idea that full-fledged human life begins at conception is a sectarian religious belief that isn’t held by the majority of religions, including a number of mainstream Christian religions.

Therefore, any local, state, or federal law that holds that full-fledged human life begins at conception is unconstitutional because such laws are made in recognition of an establishment of religion and violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

THE COURT BENDS THE FACTS: The University of London scientist whose research is cited by the Supreme Court in its ruling to take away abortion rights says that his research has been misinterpreted by Justice Alito and the Supreme Court’s activist conservative majority. Neuroscientist Dr. Giandomenico Iannetti says that the Court is ABSOLUTELY WRONG to say that his research shows that a fetus can feel pain when it is less than 24 weeks of development. “My results by no means imply that,” Dr. Iannetti declares. “I feel they were used in a clever way to make a point.” And Dr. John Wood, molecular neurobiologist at the University, points out that all serious scientists agree that a fetus can NOT feel pain until at least 24 weeks “and perhaps not even then.” Dr. Vania Apkarian, head of the Center for Transitional Pain Research at Chicago’s Feinberg School of Medicine, says that the medical evidence on a fetus not feeling pain before 24 weeks or longer has not changed in 50 years and remains “irrefutable”.

LIFE OF WOE: In its 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling upholding abortion rights, the Supreme Court set “viability” — the point at which a fetus can survive outside of the womb — as the dividing line after which some restrictions can be imposed on abortion rights. The pending ruling by current activist conservative majority on the Court will do away with the concept of viability, yet even with all of today’s medical miracles to keep a prematurely born or aborted fetus alive, of all the tens of thousands of cases, 90% OF FETUSES BORN AT 22 WEEKS DO NOT SURVIVE, and data shows that the majority of those that manage to be kept alive live the rest of their lives with a combination of BIRTH DEFECTS that include mental impairment, cerebral palsy, breathing problems, blindness, deafness, and other disorders that often require frequent hospitalizations during their lifetimes.

Categories Ethics, Extremism, Fake, Gender, Religion

Are Fetuses People, with the Rights of Other People?

By dianeravitch
April 30, 2024 //
60

The next frontier of the abortion debate is rapidly approaching. It is the movement to legislate that life begins at the instant of conception, and that fetuses in the womb (or stored in a tank in an In Vitro Fertilization clinic) are human beings, with the same rights as other human beings. Thus, to kill a fetus for any reason (e.g., to save the life of the mother, or because the pregnant girl is a 10-year-old victim of rape, or because the fetus has fatal abnormalities) is murder.

Are fetuses “natural persons?” Some people think so. They have the right to believe whatever they want, but they should not have the right to impose their beliefs on others.

But they are trying.

One-third of states have laws defining “fetal personhood.” In Georgia, individuals can claim a $3,000 tax deduction for an unborn child. The deduction applies even if there is a stillbirth or miscarriage. State auditors may have to dig into medical records to verify claims.

Critics complain that the state of Georgia is hypocritical: “This was not necessarily a good faith attempt to support people in pregnancy because, at the same time as this was being passed, we were still fighting to expand Medicaid coverage for pregnant people beyond 60 days after delivery,” [Kwajelyn Jackson, executive director of the Feminist Women’s Health Center in Atlanta] said. She also stressed the need to improve Georgia’s maternal mortality rates, which are the worst in the country, and address systemic racism within health care, which results in Black maternal mortality rates being twice as high as white women in the state.”

In Texas, a woman who was given a ticket for driving alone in the HOV lane claimed that she shouldn’t have to pay the ticket because she was 34 weeks pregnant. But Texas has not yet passed a fetal personhood law, so she was required to pay the ticket.

In several high-profile murder cases, men have been charged with a double homicide when they killed their pregnant wife.

Planned Parenthood is keeping watch on Republican efforts to pass a federal law recognizing “fetal personhood.”

Similar to what we’ve seen on the state level, anti-abortion members of Congress have pushed ”fetal personhood” attacks for years, and fights are expected to continue this spring. Federal lawmakers trying to ban abortion have tried to embed personhood language in maternal health bills, birth control bills, tax codes, child support laws, college savings plans, COVID-19 relief packages, and essential safety-net programs like Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. And they aren’t stopping. Like other personhood attacks, if taken to its most extreme, this language could affect birth control — including the pill, IUDs, and emergency contraception.

Currently, 125 members in the House, including Speaker Mike Johnson, support the Life at Conception Act, a federal personhood bill that would extend all inalienable rights afforded to Americans by the Constitution to apply at all stages of life, including to fetuses and embryos. Last year, during the first full Congress since Dobbs, as many as 166 members signed on as co-sponsors.

This attempt to legally define when personhood begins would make all abortion illegal nationwide. And, like the legislation proposed at the state level, would have grave implications for a range of sexual and reproductive health care, including some forms of contraception, infertility treatment, and miscarriage and ectopic pregnancy management. This language could also, in some circumstances, subject health care providers to criminal charges. “Personhood” language in our federal code would take away people’s ability to make safe and healthy choices about their reproductive futures and well-being. 

Laws of this kind are troubling because they turn religious beliefs into legal mandates. They inject Big Government into the most intimate details of people’s private lives. And, they are profoundly hypocritical. The states that insist on “fetal personhood” are the very ones that oppose almost every federal or state program to improve the lives of children. They are states that reject the expansion of Medicaid, leaving large numbers of people without medical insurance; they are states that weaken child labor laws, allowing teens to work long hours in dangerous jobs. They are states whose elected representatives oppose extending the child tax credit, which cut child poverty in half during the year in which it was in effect. Almost any legislation you can think of that would have improved the lives of born children has been opposed by the same people who insist on “fetal personhood.”

What’s the lesson in all this? Each of us may see it differently.

Here’s what I conclude:

Republicans care passionately about fetuses and unborn children. Once they are born, the children are on their own.

Categories Extremism, Gender, Georgia, Privacy, Religion, Science

Arizona: Republican Legislators Refuse to Consider Repealing 1864 Abortion Ban

By dianeravitch
April 17, 2024 //
2

Republican leaders, including Trump and gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake, were appalled when Arizona’s Supreme Court overturned the state’s 15-week abortion and upheld an 1864 abortion ban.

Democrats wanted to introduce a bill to repeal the 1864 law. But today Republicans refused to consider their motion.

CNN reported:

The Republican-controlled Arizona House of Representatives once again failed to advance a repeal of the state’s 160-year-old abortion banWednesday, days after the state Supreme Court roiled state politics by reviving the law.

The vote is a blow to reproductive rights as well as GOP candidates in competitive races, who have been scrambling to distance themselves from the court’s decision. Republicans facing competitive races in the state, including former President Donald Trump and US Senate candidate Kari Lake, called on the GOP-controlled legislature to work with Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs to take a more moderate path.

On Wednesday, following two attempts to discuss a bill that would repeal Arizona’s 1864 ban on abortions, lawmakers voted not to discuss the measure on the House floor.

The representatives’ votes were evenly split, with the chair making the tie-breaking decision. The bill itself was not brought up for a vote.

“The last thing we should be doing today is rushing a bill through the legislative process to repeal a law that has been enacted and affirmed by the legislature several times,” House Speaker Ben Toma said during debate.

If the 1864 law were repealed, Arizona would revert back to a 15-week abortion restriction signed into law in 2022 by then-Gov. Doug Ducey, a Republican. The state court delayed enforcement of the ban for at least 14 days to allow plaintiffs to challenge it, meaning abortions are still allowed in the state.

The ban prohibits the procedure except to save the life of the pregnant person and threatens providers with prison sentences between two and five years.

If the 1864 law goes into effect, Arizona would join 14 states that have passed near total abortion bans, some with no exceptions for victims of rape or incest…

A March Wall Street Journal poll, conducted before the state Supreme Court ruling, found that 59% of registered voters in Arizona believe abortion should be legal in all cases or most cases with some restrictions. Another 27% said they believe abortion should be illegal with exceptions for rape, incest or when the pregnant person’s life is endangered. Nine percent said the procedure should be illegal in all cases.

Categories Arizona, Democrats, Elections, Gender, Health, Republicans

Arizona: How Democrats Could Overturn the Abortion Ban of 1864

By dianeravitch
April 16, 2024 //
7

Ray Stern of The Arizona Republic reports that the two houses of the legislature are so closely divided that Democrats would throw out the 1864 ban on abortion with the help of only a few Republicans. Even Trump crony Kari Lake is embarrassed by the 1864 ban.

Arizona Democrats, aided by a pair of Republicans in each chamber of the Legislature, appear to have the votes to pass a bill repealing the state’s 1864 abortion ban.

Almost anything is possible with a vote of 31 out of 60 in the state House, or 16 out of 30 in the state Senate.

Lawmakers say they expect to see a vote on the repeal when they return to work on Wednesday, even though the Legislature’s leaders don’t want it. The process almost started last week but stalled when Republicans didn’t get behind it.

Republicans hold one-seat majorities in the House and Senate, but Democrats can reach a majority with help from a few Republicans. Rules normally require that bills get heard by committees and move along the process according to set timelines, but a majority of members can vote to waive the rules.

The public reaction against the 1864 ban has been so intense that some Republicans might vote to overturn it. But there may be some Democrats wondering if they should take the issue off the table before November.

Categories Arizona, Elections, Extremism, Gender, Health

Florida: Ex-Judge Lambastes Supreme Court for Ignoring State Constitution

By dianeravitch
April 15, 2024 //
16

Barbara Pariente served on the Florida Supreme Court for more than twenty years and is now retired. She was astonished by that court’s recent decision to approve a six-week ban on abortion, because the state constitution explicitly protects privacy rights, which unquestionably—until now—included abortion decisions.

She recently wrote in Slate:

On April 1, the Florida Supreme Court, in a 6–1 ruling, overturned decades of decisions beginning in 1989 that recognized a woman’s right to choose—that is, whether to have an abortion—up to the time of viability.

Anchored in Florida’s own constitutional right to privacy, this critical individual right to abortion had been repeatedly affirmed by the state Supreme Court, which consistently struck down conflicting laws passed by the Legislature.

As explained first in 1989:

Florida’s privacy provision is clearly implicated in a woman’s decision of whether or not to continue her pregnancy. We can conceive of few more personal or private decisions concerning one’s body in the course of a lifetime.

Tellingly, the justices at the time acknowledged that their decision was based not only on U.S. Supreme Court precedent but also on Florida’s own privacy amendment.

I served on the Supreme Court of Florida beginning in 1998 and retired, based on our mandatory retirement requirement, a little more than two decades later. Whether Florida’s Constitution provided a right to privacy that encompassed abortion was never questioned, even by those who would have been deemed the most conservative justices—almost all white men back in 1989!

And strikingly, one of the conservative justices at that time stated: “If the United States Supreme Court were to subsequently recede from Roe v. Wade, this would not diminish the abortion rights now provided by the privacy amendment of the Florida Constitution.” Wow!

In 2017 I authored an opinion holding unconstitutional an additional 24-hour waiting period after a woman chooses to terminate her pregnancy. Pointing out that other medical procedures did not have such requirements, the majority opinion noted, “Women may take as long as they need to make this deeply personal decision,” adding that the additional 24 hours stipulated that the patient make a second, medically unnecessary trip, incurring additional costs and delays. The court applied what is known in constitutional law as a “strict scrutiny” test for fundamental rights.

Interestingly, Justice Charles Canady, who is still on the Florida Supreme Court and who participated in the evisceration of Florida’s privacy amendment last week, did not challenge the central point that abortion is included in an individual’s right to privacy. He dissented, not on substantive grounds but on technical grounds.

So what can explain this 180-degree turn by the current Florida Supreme Court? If I said “politics,” that answer would be insufficient, overly simplistic. Unfortunately, with this court, precedent is precedent until it is not. Perhaps each of the six justices is individually, morally or religiously, opposed to abortion.

Yet, at the same time, and on the same, by a 4–3 majority, the justices—three of whom participated in overturning precedent—voted to allow the proposed constitutional amendment on abortion to be placed on the November ballot. (The dissenters: the three female members of the Supreme Court.) That proposed constitutional amendment:

Amendment to Limit Government Interference With Abortion:

No law shall prohibit, penalize, delay, or restrict abortion before viability or when necessary to protect the patient’s health, as determined by the patient’s healthcare provider. This amendment does not change the Legislature’s constitutional authority to require notification to a parent or guardian before a minor has an abortion. 

For the proposed amendment to pass and become enshrined in the state constitution, 60 percent of Florida voters must vote yes.

In approving the amendment to be placed on the ballot at the same time that it upheld Florida’s abortion bans, the court angered those who support a woman’s right to choose as well as those who are opposed to abortion. Most likely the latter groups embrace the notion that fetuses are human beings and have rights that deserve to be protected. Indeed, Chief Justice Carlos Muñiz, during oral argument on the abortion amendment case, queried the state attorney general on precisely that issue, asking if the constitutional language that defends the rights of all natural persons extends to an unborn child at any stage of pregnancy.

In fact, and most troubling, it was the three recently elevated Gov. Ron DeSantis appointees—all women—who expressed their views that the voters should not be allowed to vote on the amendment because it could impact the rights of the unborn child. Justice Jamie Grosshans, joined by Justice Meredith Sasso, expressed that the amendment was defective because it failed to disclose the potential effect on the rights of the unborn child. Justice Renatha Francis was even more direct writing in her dissent:

The exercise of a “right” to an abortion literally results in a devastating infringement on the right of another person: the right to live. And our Florida Constitution recognizes that “life” is a “basic right” for “[a]ll natural persons.” One must recognize the unborn’s competing right to life and the State’s moral duty to protect that life.

In other words the three dissenting justices would recognize that fetuses are included in who is a “natural person” under Florida’s Constitution.

What should be top of mind days after the dueling decisions? Grave concern for the women of our state who will be in limbo because, following the court’s ruling, a six-week abortion ban—before many women even know they are pregnant—will be allowed to go into effect. We know that these restrictions will disproportionately affect low-income women and those who live in rural communities.

Categories Civil Rights, Elections, Ethics, Extremism, Florida, Gender, Injustice

Texas: The Gilead Wives Club Who Sell Out Women’s Freedom and Rights

By dianeravitch
April 15, 2024 //
4

Michelle H. Davis writes a lively blog about Texas politics, called LoneStarLeft.

In this post, she writes about the claque of Republican women in the legislature who regularly step forward to sell out the freedom and rights of women. Michelle compares them to the wives of Gilead in Margaret Atwood’s prophetic The Handmaid’s Tale. She names them and names the Democrat who is running against them.

She writes:

The Handmaid’s Tale by Margaret Atwood, both in its book form and TV adaptation, narrates the plight of women in a dystopian world that eerily mirrors potential realities. Set in Gilead, a nation born from the collapse of America due to the rise of far-right extremists, the society is a strict patriarchy, stripping women of any rights. Women are categorized into distinct roles within this regime.

Handmaids, identified for their fertility, are allocated to Commanders and their spouses for forced impregnation and childbirth, with their offspring subsequently removed from their care. Marthas serve as domestic workers and laborers. Aunts enforce discipline among the Handmaids. As for the wives, they actively participate by holding the Handmaids down during the acts of rape by their husbands.

Republican women in the Texas House play similar roles to the wives of Gilead. These are the women who author and push bills to strip the women in Texas of bodily autonomy. This is why they are the Gilead Wives Club because if it were Gilead, they undoubtedly would hold other women down as they were raped, similarly to how they use their time in the Legislature to oppress and violate the women of Texas. 

The Gilead Wives Club is the woman responsible for getting abortions banned in Texas. 

The Gilead Wives Club is the woman responsible for the high maternal mortality in Texas. 

The Gilead Wives Club is the woman responsible for blocking insurance access to women in Texas. 

Republican men in the Texas House use these women to push all the bills that harm women. 

That’s how it’s been for the last two legislative sessions. I believe it’s an optics thing. Perhaps the Republican men feel as if oppression against women should come from other women to make the debates easier as they make it through the House. And the women of the Gilead Wives Club happily comply…

Valoree Swanson – the HBIC. 

Representative Valoree Swanson (HD150-Harris County) is the puppet master of these ladies. She’s the Regina George, the Tony Soprano, the Cersei Lannister of these women. She should be the number one target to vote because the entire club would fall apart without her. 

Most women who follow her around like little puppy dogs do so because they aren’t smart enough to handle the legislative process independently. Swanson directs them on legislation and what to say during debates. 

Taking out Valoree Swanson would completely cripple Republican women in the Texas House. 

Running against Swanson is Democrat Marisela “MJ” Jimenez. 

Jimenez became a US citizen in 2005 after pledging to support and defend the Constitution. She’s received endorsements from the Texas Gulf Coast Area Labor Federation and the Climate Cabinet. 

You can find out more about MJ Jimenez on her website or Twitter.

Michelle goes on to describe the other members of the Gilead Wives’ Club and the Democrats running against them.

Categories Accountability, Democracy, Elections, Extremism, Gender, Republicans, Texas

Bernie Sanders Explains Trump’s Position on Abortion

By dianeravitch
April 14, 2024 //
9

Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont was interviewed by Christiane Amsnpour, who asked him what he thought about Trump’s views on abortion.

Watch and listen to Senator Sanders’ succinct response.

Categories Civil Rights, Democracy, Elections, Gender, Health, Lies, Trump
« Older Entries