Monday evening an unknown individual inside the United States Supreme Court leaked a draft decision written by Justice Samuel Alito which would explicitly overturn the landmark decisions Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. This would mean the end to a guaranteed federal constitutional protection of abortion rights and at least 22 states, including Missouri, would almost immediately ban abortion entirely. This has been the animating force behind the conservative legal movement for the last two generations and this is their grand triumph which will only embolden the court to go even further. The language of Alito leaves the door open for reconsiderations of Obergefell v. Hodges which legalized same-sex marriage and Lawrence v. Texas which invalidated state laws criminalizing homosexual intercourse, and if you compare his dissent in Obergefell to his draft majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization it’s not hard to imagine the Court deciding to also “Send the issue back to the states”. The Constitution of the United States of America is in the hands of 6 members of the federalist society, we are entering a new era of American politics.

President Biden has made clear that his administration has no plans to protect abortion access. In a statement the morning after the leak, the President said, “If the Court does overturn Roe, it will fall on our nation’s elected officials at all levels of government to protect a woman’s right to choose. And it will fall on voters to elect pro-choice officials this November.  At the federal level, we will need more pro-choice senators and a pro-choice majority in the House to adopt legislation that codifies Roe, which I will work to pass and sign into law.” It’s important to be clear about two points. The first, is the most important and it is that the president’s party almost always has a bad midterm. Data from fivethirtyeight.com shows a familiar pattern (that I also wrote about in 2021 here) “Overall, in the post-World War II era, the president’s party has performed an average of 7.4 points worse in the House popular vote in midterm elections than it did two years prior. Therefore, since Democrats won the House popular vote by 3.0 points in 2020, Republicans can roughly expect to win it by 4.4 points in 2022 if history is any guide…Indeed, in the 19 midterm elections between 1946 and 2018, the president’s party has improved upon its share of the House popular vote just once. And since 1994, when (we would argue) the modern political alignment took hold, the president’s party has lost the national House popular vote in six out of seven midterm elections — usually by similar margins (6 to 9 percentage points) to boot.”

It took 9/11 for George W. Bush and Impeachment for Bill Clinton, as well as voter coalitions that no longer exist, for them to break history. It is extremely unlikely that President Biden, given his approval ratings, economic conditions, and redistricting will outrun history. The second point is, when Democrats had 60 Senators there were not enough votes to codify Roe into law. In 2022 there are not realistic opportunities to win 60 Senate seats, meaning the only avenue to codifying Roe or expanding the Court or any potential remedy would be through abolishing the filibuster which cannot find 50 votes in the US Senate. Currently in the House of Representatives, Speaker Nancy Pelosi is campaigning for the lone anti-choice Democrat in the House while he has a viable progressive challenger in Jessica Cisneros. This is the state of our opposition party, these individuals are the last line of defense.

There are some who have used this dark moment which represents the greatest contraction of civil rights since the end of Reconstruction to deliver an “I told you so”. These people would like to do historical revisionism about the 2016 election and have taken to blaming the left-wing in this country for the state of the Supreme Court. Generally, it’s not worth engaging in this discourse, but I’ve decided to do so today if not for the sole reason that these narratives are actively hindering the success of any centrist let alone any liberal project in this country. Candidly, we are rapidly approaching different entirely preventable disasters and we shouldn’t waste any more time promulgating useless ideas. So, I’m willing to address the skyscraper sized elephant lurking around this discourse, What if Hillary Clinton had won. It’s probably the most frequent hypothetical among liberals, and my read of the alternative is blessed by hindsight but is not informed by omniscience. This is what I believe would’ve happened, it is not exhaustive of everything that could’ve happened.

It’s important to note that Clinton didn’t lose because of insufficient support from the left. In 2008, Clinton did 13 public campaign events for then-candidate Sen. Barack Obama. In 2016, Sen. Bernie Sanders did 41 public campaign events for Clinton during the general election. In 2008, 25% of Clinton primary voters supported Sen. John McCain. In 2016, only 12% of Sanders supporters voted for Trump, meanwhile 13% of Obama’s 2012 voters supported Trump. Clinton lost because she was the most unpopular Democrat to run for President in the history of modern polling and would’ve been the most unpopular candidate period if not for Donald Trump. In terms of ideology, it’s hard to remember now but a critical number of voters wrongly perceived Trump to be more moderate than Clinton. To imagine a world in which Clinton wins the election is not difficult because in spite of her weak electoral performance and rock bottom approval ratings, she very nearly did win. Let’s imagine that James Comey does not release his October letter which hurt Clinton among late deciders and Clinton narrowly wins Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Florida bringing her to 307 electoral votes. Let’s assume, for Clinton’s sake, that her improved margin extends down ballot which would mean victories in the Pennsylvania and Missouri Senate races and probably an additional 2-3 house seats. This would give her the exact same evenly divided Senate the Biden has but a GOP controlled House. So, what would have happened to Antonin Scalia’s vacant seat?

President Hillary Clinton would submit her nominee to the Senate Judiciary Committee, likely Sri Srinivasan of the D.C. Circuit or Jane Kelly of the 8^th Circuit. The nomination would advance deadlocked from the committee, NeverTrump Republicans like former Sen. Jeff Flake would not adopt their current faux moderate posture without Trump as a foil but would return to the vapid anti-Clinton rhetoric that dominated the 90s. It is likely that Republicans would filibuster this Supreme Court nomination, led perhaps by Sen. Ted Cruz who would now likely be heir-apparent for the 2020 nomination or Sen. Jeff Sessions who instead of being disgraced former Attorney General would be an ideological leader in the GOP Conference. Even without the filibuster, the nomination is in jeopardy as Sen. Manchin is non-committal about supporting the nominee and no GOP Senator wants to cast the deciding vote in favor. Senate Majority Leader Schumer undertakes an effort to abolish the Senate filibuster for Supreme Court nominees, it fails 47-53 with Senators Joe Donnelly, Heidi Heitkamp, and Joe Manchin voting with all Republicans. President Clinton is forced to withdraw her nomination and through a compromise with Mitch McConnell and Chuck Grassley nominates then Gov. Brian Sandoval of Nevada, a “moderate” Republican. He is confirmed with all 50 Democrats and 16 Republicans voting in favor. Justice Anthony Kennedy, a Republican appointed by Reagan, opts not to retire while Democrats control the Senate and Presidency. Justice Ginsburg again postpones retirement, fearing that she too will be replaced by a conservative compromise candidate.

In 2018, Democrats suffer sweeping loses in the midterm elections. Republicans elect Josh Hawley in Missouri, Rick Scott in Florida, Joe Donnelly in Indiana, and Kevin Cramer in North Dakota just like in our reality. However, Republicans also pick up West Virginia and Montana while holding Nevada as Democrats narrowly squeak by in Arizona, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. There is no special election in Minnesota, Democrats don’t force Al Franken to resign and launch at attempt to discredit the MeToo movement as liberal figures like Harvey Weinstein and Kevin Spacey find themselves accused of sexual misconduct. This is done partially to protect the tenuous Democratic majority, but also to discredit renewed criticism of former President Bill Clinton as his connections to child sex-trafficker Jeffrey Epstein become public knowledge during a special counsel investigation lead by Robert Mueller was launched by the House early in the administration. On January 3^rd, Mitch McConnell becomes Senate Majority leader once again with 55 seats. Democrats make gains in the House, although still in the minority they make gains in the suburbs bringing their numbers just above 200.

In 2019, Several Republicans announce their candidacies for President including Sen. Ted Cruz fresh off his double-digit re-election, Governor Nikki Haley, and Sen. Tom Cotton while Speaker Paul Ryan forms an exploratory committee before ultimately deciding against a run. Donald Trump is speculated to be a potential candidate, but instead successfully pivots his failed run for President into a New York Times best-selling novel with accompanying docuseries chronicling his rise to the GOP nomination self-describing as a “populist revolutionary”. Clinton herself faces a spirited primary challenge from Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley (the lone member of the Senate to endorse Sanders in 2016), and he wins the New Hampshire primary as well as a few caucuses, but he is never seriously close to overtaking Clinton and she wraps up the nomination before mid-March. The pandemic still rages across the globe in 2020, in the United States the pandemic is made worse by a severe economic recession. President Clinton and the GOP Congress deadlock on several fronts and settle on a relief package that mirrors the 2009 recovery, however it is not passed until May leaving millions scrambling to compete for resources from overwhelmed nonprofits. Infections are lower than our current reality because Clinton never disempowers the CDC and is prepared for a pandemic level event, but anti-lockdown activity begins earlier and is more violent as people are animated not just by anti-science conspiracy but also anti-Clinton sentiment. In September, Ruth Bader Ginsburg dies, and Republicans hold open her seat for the duration of the 2020 Election. President Clinton is likely defeated, not since the election of 1820 have there been 2 successive 2 term presidents of the same political party. If Clinton did win re-election, it’s hard to imagine Democrats having better midterm prospects in 2022 than what they face today. When she does lose, Republicans appoint Attorney General Pam Bondi of Florida or perhaps law professor Amy Coney Barrett. Justice Anthony Kennedy retires shortly thereafter, and Judge Brett Kavanaugh is elevated to his seat. Roe and Casey are functionally though not explicitly overruled in a 5-4 decision, with Sandoval joining the liberal minority in dissent.

Seeing as a Clinton victory might not have been enough to avoid our current reality, what would’ve needed to happen to avoid this nightmare? You don’t have to get into butterfly effect level science fiction or have had psychic super power to be able to imagine how things could’ve gone differently. If:

1. At any point between 2009 and 2015, if Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had opted to retire, abortion rights, voting rights, labor rights, and many civil liberties would not be facing near certain annihilation. In 2013, Ginsburg had battled cancer twice by the age of 80 and the political environment in Washington was increasingly polarized. It was clear to contemporary writers that should Republicans capture the Senate, something they were heavily favored to do given the history of midterm elections, because of rising partisanship it would be unlikely that a liberal successor could be confirmed. At the time, the balance of the court was 3 hard right conservatives, 2 center-right conservatives, and 4 liberals. The few liberal victories of the 21^st century were generally 5-4 decisions, and the disappearance of any justice would have a dramatic impact on constitutional law. Furthermore, the disappearance of a liberal justice would of course mean a hard right turn in the court at least until a conservative vacancy appeared. Ginsburg, understanding the stakes of her decision opted not to retire. When she died, as an attempt to shield her legacy perhaps realizing the disastrous effect of her decision to not retire, sheepishly relayed a message that she knew would not be honored. Ginsburg had no reason to believe her replacement would not be a woman, as President Obama had nominated both Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. Ginsburg had no reason to believe that her replacement would be less liberal, as Sotomayor actually disagreed more with Kavanaugh, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts than Ginsburg did in the 2019 term. There was no reason for Ginsburg to do what she did, and that decision more than anything else is responsible for this moment.
2. In 2014 and 2010, Democrats lost several close Senate races and spent tens of millions of dollars on blowout losing races. If the party had decided to abandon clear losers and directed that spending elsewhere, Democrats might’ve had a Senate majority in 2016 when Scalia died. Which would’ve meant a liberal Supreme Court, not just a not as far right one, but a genuine liberal majority which hasn’t existed in generations. Let’s look at the 2010 races, Sen. Blanche Lincoln (AR-D) spent $12 million for 37% of the vote, Gov. Charlie Crist (FL-I) and Rep. Kendrick Meek (FL-D) spent a collective $23 million to receive 29.7% and 20.2% of the vote respectively, and Robin Carnahan (MO-D) spent $10 million to receive 40.6% of the vote. Meanwhile Democratic Senate candidates in Illinois and Pennsylvania failed by less than 2% of the vote. What might an extra $45 million split between the two of them have meant? So, what about 2014? Mark Pryor (AR-D) spent $14 million to receive 39% of the vote and Alison Lundergan Grimes spent $18 million to receive 41% of the vote. Meanwhile, Democrats lost Alaska, Colorado, and North Carolina by less the 2.3%. If those races had broken Democrats way, they would’ve certainly had enough votes to Supreme Court Justice. Unfortunately, this pattern has only intensified as Democrats burned a whopping $250 million dollars to be beaten by double digits in Kentucky, South Carolina, and Alabama while losing several close House races.
3. In 2009, Democrats could’ve attempted to codify Roe. For 3 months, Democrats had a filibuster proof majority and then just shy of it the rest of that congressional term. There were likely enough Pro-Choice Republicans to overcome the objections of Anti-Choice Democrats, and even if compromise legislation had to be crafted it is a near certainty that it would’ve been better than our current system which has allowed states like Texas and Mississippi to ban abortion without outright doing so. It certainly would’ve been better than allowing a conservative court to decide the fate of abortion. But the fault on this one doesn’t lay solely with Harry Reid, but with President Barack Obama. In 2007, he said at a speech to Planned Parenthood that the first thing he’d do as President was sign the “Freedom of Choice Act” which would’ve codified Roe. Before he’d been President 100 days, it had been completely dropped from his agenda and he said of the bill that it was “not my highest legislative priority” and apparently not a priority at all.

That leaves just one burning question, what can we do now? Some of you will be tempted to say “vote!” or some variation of “elect more Democrats”. I’d like you to just consider this, for a moment. In 2018, more than half of Americans could not name a single Supreme Court Justice. Although most Americans (71%) blame Vladimir Putin and Oil companies (68%) for the rising cost of oil, however a majority also blame President Biden (51%) and Democratic Party policies (52%). Most voters don’t perceive politics through the lens of obsessive partisan observers, and often are more likely to see correlations and be unaware of longer-term trends. This is all to say that there is a critical mass of voters who will say “Why should I be convinced that my support has mattered or will matter? I’ve always voted for Democrats, and they just beat Trump so why is this happening.” If Abortion rights disappear while Democrats control congress and the Presidency, the fine details will be lost and I don’t think it’s logical to assume that the response among voters will be a Democratic surge. Although, you should support candidates who support abortion rights when given the opportunity. It’s important to keep protesting, donate to abortion funds to support people who are going to have trouble finding access, and testify against state efforts to criminalize abortion.  But beyond that, what else is there? Not much that isn’t 10 years too late. What’s really important is for the left to develop a sense of our place of history and work towards a long-term vision for society. The right knows who they are and where they are going and have been working for it since the New Deal. We must have that same determination and will or there will come a day when we wake up in a country that we do not recognize as our own. We may already be there.

The post Would President Hillary Clinton have saved Roe? Probably Not appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Following the oral arguments on the Mississippi Abortion Law on December 1, many legal scholars have said that five of the six conservatives on the Supreme Court (all but Chief Justice John Roberts) seem inclined to overrule Roe v Wade.

If the Court overrules Roe, it could be a case where pro-life proponents including the likely five justices who vote to do so (Alito, Barrett, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Thomas) may want to be careful about that for which they wish. The reason is because the decision would likely be handed down in late June or early July of 2022, and mid-term elections would be just a few months later in November.

As of now, should Roe be overturned, approximately half the fifty states have laws in place that would ban virtually all abortions. That means that tens of millions of women who currently have limited rights and resources to receive an abortion would be shut out of that choice in their state of residence. And since so many of these states are adjacent to one another in the South and the Midwest, women would be many hundreds of miles away from a clinic in a state where abortion would still be legal and accessible.

Progressives have been reluctant to talk about why abortion should be safe or legal, other than the basic issue of women’s rights. Rarely do choice proponents mention how difficult it can be for a woman, or a man, to be a parent when they lose a job, they are still in school, they have a life planned in professions where they cannot easily be removed from a prescribed path. Rarely do they talk about the economics of parenthood. Rarely do they talk about while adoption is an excellent alternative, it’s not for everyone. Rarely do they talk about all the pain and agony that a woman must endure when she is in the midst of an unwanted pregnancy. Rarely do they talk about how many of the women with unwanted pregnancies are actually girls, often victims of rape or incest.

Simply put, pro-choice proponents have not been pissed off enough, at least not publicly so. But if Roe is overturned this coming summer, millions of women and men who conveniently thought that this issue would fade away will be confronted with a singular commonality about their choice of abortion: massive inconvenience and expense. It may be that there are as many reasons for a woman to opt for an abortion as there are women, but virtually all will be united in wanting to get the federal government to reinstate their right to control their bodies.

If this happens, pro-choice candidates will get unprecedented numbers of committed and effective volunteers. The airwaves will be saturated with commercials on both sides of the issue, but for those who are pro-choice, it will be something new. The myopic vision of many who are pro-life will be unmasked as it becomes more clear that they have no right to be involved in a decision about something that they don’t own. It will be recognized as the worst kind of over-reaching.

If next summer and fall we see a mobilized pro-choice movement unparalleled since anti-Vietnam and civil rights efforts of the ’60s and ’70s, Democratic candidates could have the support to win in states and congressional districts that are presently considered deep red. Joe Biden will still have two years left in his presidency and he might have more workable majorities in both houses of Congress.

Eventually, Supreme Court vacancies will occur when we have a Democratic president and a Senate that has reformed its rules to better allow the will of the majority to prevail.

It has happened in our nation’s history that government has moved aggressively to protect civil liberties, most particularly in the sixty’s decade of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Perhaps, just perhaps, overturning Roe will have the unintended result of expanding human rights. For that, we will all be far better.

The post Pro-Choice Advocates May Benefit from Timing of Supreme Court Decision on Mississippi Law appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Conventional wisdom says that “in polite company,” we don’t talk about sex, politics, or religion. Of the three, sex is clearly the least comfortable topic to broach.

You see, sex is a ‘hot’ topic; it’s erotic. Some may regard sex as joy; others regard it with shame; and still others with no apparent emotion. While nearly everyone has an opinion about it that does not mean that all are willing to engage in open conversation about sex.

This problem is particularly difficult with the topic of abortion. When abortion is brought up, what is missing is the honesty in the conversation – the honesty about how and why a woman becomes pregnant; what her thinking was before, during and after the act, and how the impregnator (the man) can frequently walk away from an act in which he was either an aggressor or a collaborator or some combination of the two.

Under the best of circumstances, the sex act is a consensual on the part of both individuals. At the time, the two may or may not have desired to pro-create. Under the best of circumstances, this is how the human race commits acts of love and carries on its existence from generation to generation.

But it doesn’t always evolve that way. There are numerous ways for complications or unfortunate circumstances to develop. Following the intercourse, the couple may decide that they are not in love and no longer want to be joint parents to a child.

If both believe in a traditional nuclear family, then the change in their relationship may cause one or both to decide that now is not a good time to give birth to a child. This can be particularly so with the woman who bears major responsibility for the pregnancy and the subsequent child-rearing.

Another dynamic may also be that there are other life changes for one or both progenitors. One is diagnosed with an illness or sustains an injury. It clearly is not a good time to bring a child into the world.

It may also be that as the adults’ lives evolve during the months following the pregnancy, that one or both parties decide that they are not ready to be parents; that they feel a greater compulsion now to pursue a career or avocation. This may seem crass to a strict pro-life advocate, but it is among the myriad of reasons why one or both parties to a pregnancy may want an abortion at a difficult time.

Perhaps the most likely cause of one or both parents not wanting to carry a pregnancy to term is that the process started off informally and then morphed into a “we just want to have a good time” occasion and little or no thought was given to a possible pregnancy during the act of intercourse.

The arguments in favor of abortion for women who have been victims of rape or incest are so compelling that it is hard to fathom why anyone would oppose them. It is often said that many conservatives are mean-spirited; their opposition to abortion following a rape or incest adds clear evidence to that assertion.

All of these reasons are tried and true parts of the ongoing human experience. As you read this, similar scenarios to the ones described above are happening all around the globe, and there is no stopping them.

Because sex is viewed by most as either ‘hot’ or ‘cold,’ most people have reasons to not discuss it in so-called polite company. But it’s too tempting to simply ignore. So rather than pretend that it does not exist, most of us, and especially the news media, either ignore it, or talk about it in code. This is something in which conservatives are exceptionally skilled. They frame issues in a way that do not use literal definitions. Instead, that they are cloaked in verbiage that assuages those conservatives who think that the only way to reference it is to disguise it. They talk about it as life, and what could be more pure. But their big fallacy is that they totally ignore the life of the mother, and the father. The force of the conservatives is so strong that it essentially inundates the mainstream media as well.

Conservatives will continue to dominate the abortion issue and wreak tremendous damage on the civil liberties and economic well-being of non-conservatives. The alternative is for progressives to discuss abortion and sex at the same time, and describe how abortion policy without a realization that “sex happens” will never reflect reality, empathy, and respect for basic civil liberties. Come on, progressives. News organizations now let us use the ‘F’ word as an expletive; why can’t we talk about it for what it really means. It will greatly help the whole country better come to terms with the abortion issue and make more logical and empathetic decisions.

The post Progressives need to move beyond their fear of talking about abortion appeared first on Occasional Planet.

If you’re a woman and if your head is spinning following passage of the draconian abortion law in Alabama, rest assured that the dizzy disorientation you’re feeling is shared by women across the country. If you’re like me, you might find yourself waking up in a cold sweat in the middle of the night with the terrifying sense that your worst nightmare has just crossed the threshold from dream to reality. If you’re like me, you might find that words fail to describe your sense of anger and despair.

Welcome, ladies, to the new reality of the all-out, unashamed assault on our bodies and our lives. This is the battle we hoped we’d never have to face. This is the battle that we should have known was baked into the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade. This is the battle that we and our daughters will have to fight because every obstacle that every woman ever has overcome and every opportunity seized were born out of our ability to make our own choices about our reproductive lives. Make no mistake about this: Every aspect of women’s lives is now under threat.

And where, exactly, do our fellow citizens stand on women’s right to decide how, when, and with whom we choose to bear our children? According to the Pew Research Center, 58% of Americans say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, while 37% think abortion should be illegal in all or most cases.

When you break down those numbers into attitudes among Republicans and Democrats, the deep divide over abortion becomes even more stark. Here’s what the pollsters at Pew found:

“By a wide margin (59% to 36%), Republicans say abortion should be illegal in all or most cases. In 1995, Republicans were evenly divided (49% legal vs. 48% illegal).

Views among Democrats have shifted in the other direction over the past two decades. Today, 76% of Democrats say abortion should be legal in at least most cases. In 1995, 64% favored legal abortion in all or most cases.”

Should we, as pro-choice women, take any solace at all from the fact that our views are shared by a majority of Americans? Sadly, the answer is no. We’re living through a time in which nothing in our civic and political life can be taken for granted. If nothing else, Donald Trump and his Republican enablers have demonstrated to us in no uncertain terms that majority opinion does not necessarily prevail. In fact, with every news cycle we are bombarded with the upside-down reality that the beliefs and opinions of the majority can easily be overwhelmed and squashed by the cunning, the dishonesty, and the manipulation of the minority.

Words may have failed me upon hearing the disturbing news out of Alabama. But words haven’t failed three clever comedy writers, Amber Ruffin, Jenny Hagel, and Ally Hord. They’ve found just the right words. Listen, laugh, and cry. And then shake off the nightmare and get ready to fight.

The post Alabama’s anti-abortion abomination appeared first on Occasional Planet.

One of the most contentious and emotionally charged issues in American politics today is the issue of abortion and a woman’s right to choose. Forgotten in the increasingly divisive crusade to deny women the right to make decisions over the autonomy of their own bodies and their right to choose whether to carry a pregnancy to term is the fact that abortion is as old as pregnancy itself.

Contemporary discussions about abortion often seem to begin and end with 1973 – the year of the ruling in Roe v. Wade, in which the Supreme Court handed down one of the most life-altering decisions for women in the court’s history. That decision has rippled through American culture – and, indeed, across the world – in multiple ways that continue to profoundly impact women, their life choices, their financial well-being, and their expectations of fulfilling the promise of their lives.

As the debate rages on, and as countless numbers of women’s lives and the lives of their families are impacted by the narrowing of abortion access in states across the country, it’s important to remember that the undeniable fact of women seeking to control the destinies of their bodies predates by centuries that decision in 1973. It’s also important to remember that the history of abortion cannot be recalled without acknowledging the fears and sheer desperation that led our female forebears to tolerate the dangers, the pain, and the risk of remedies and procedures they hoped would end an unwanted pregnancy but often led instead to permanent bodily harm or death.

Abortion in the 18^th and 19^th Centuries

Let’s acknowledge as well that, contrary to popular belief, abortion restrictions and the outright denial of abortion access is a relatively new development in America’s history. In her definitive history of abortion in America, “When Abortion Was a Crime,” historian Leslie Reagan recounts how abortion used to be a part of everyday American life. In the eighteenth century until the late nineteenth century, abortions were commonly performed and were permitted under common law until “quickening” – a term that describes the stage when fetal movement in the womb may be felt by the mother. Prior to 1880, even the Catholic Church tolerated the reality of abortion. As Reagan explains, “the Catholic Church implicitly accepted early abortions prior to ensoulment. Not until 1869, at about the same time that abortion became politicized in this country, did the church condemn abortion; in 1895 it condemned therapeutic abortion [procedures performed to save the life of the mother].”

In 1857, the newly constituted American Medical Association undertook what could be considered one of the first large-scale lobbying efforts to criminalize abortion. Due to concerns about poisonings, but also reflecting a growing backlash to women’s emerging role in American public life and the desire of member physicians to professionalize the practice of medicine and limit the competition of midwives and homeopaths, the AMA pushed for state laws restricting abortion. In 1873, Congress passed the Comstock Law, banning abortion drugs. By 1880, the AMA’s efforts lobbying for state laws restricting abortion bore their bitter fruit.

Abortions in ancient times

Even earlier historic accounts provide a glimpse into the common practice of women seeking to abort unwanted pregnancies. These accounts not only comment on procedures but also recount a long list of recipes for pastes, pessaries, ingestions, salves, suppositories, and ingested herbal toxins. Folk cultures across the world and across time abound with an almost limitless variety of abortifacients and methods for their use passed on from one generation to the next. The acknowledgment of abortion as a fact of women’s reproductive lives was not limited to folk culture and the ministrations of shamans, herbalists, and midwives. The most influential philosophers, scientists, and physicians of ancient times wrote about and often provided advice about the most effective abortion techniques.

In the Kahun Gynecological Papyrus, one of the earliest known medical texts from ancient Egypt, the use of crocodile dung made into a pessary to be inserted into the vagina was the recommended method to induce abortion.

In ancient Greece, the musings of Aristotle in his work “Politics” foreshadow some of the thorniest terms of the debate raging through to our own time.

Aristotle wrote:

 “. . . when couples have children in excess, let abortion be procured before sense and life have begun; what may or may not be lawfully done in these cases depends on the question of life and sensation.”

The Greek physician Hippocrates, although mostly opposed to abortion, counseled that a woman seeking to end a pregnancy could “jump up and down, touching her buttocks with her heels at each leap” – causing the embryo to come “loose” and fall out. This was a technique that later became known as the Lacedaemonian Leap. Other Greek physicians recommended the ingestion of myrrh, rue, and juniper.

In the days of the Roman Empire, Pliny the Elder’s “Natural History” provided evidence that women of his time sought to limit the number of pregnancies. His practical–-if ineffective—advice confirmed that “if a pregnant woman steps over a viper, she will be sure to miscarry.”

An eighth-century Sanskrit manuscript recommended sitting over a pot of boiling water or steamed onions –a questionable pregnancy-ending technique used by Jewish women on New York’s Lower East Side well into the twentieth century.

Here are some of the methods women have used, throughout history, to try to induce abortions

• Ingesting a meal of toxic lupines with ox bile and absinthium
• Smearing the mouth of the uterus with olive oil, honey, cedar resin, and the juice of the balsam tree
• Myrtle oil gums
• Sitting in a bath of linseed, fenugreek, mallow, marshmallow, and wormwood
• Creating a paste of ants, foam from camel’s mouths, and tail hairs of black-tail deer dissolved in bear fat
• Ingesting pennyroyal or drinking of pennyroyal tea (5 grams of which is toxic and may lead to death)
• Fumigating the womb with various poisons
• Opium ingested with mandrake root, Queen Anne’s lace, gum resin, and various types of peppers (in 2011 it was reported that women in Pakistan are still using opium bombs in the uterus to end unwanted pregnancies)
• Inducing abortion by riding horses or carrying heavy objects
• Inserting a uterine suppository of mouse dung, honey, Egyptian salt, wild colocynth, and resin

Today in America, one in four women will have an abortion by the age of forty-five. Tellingly, 59 percent of women seeking abortions are mothers. Many of us believed that the Roe v. Wade decision was settled law and that the decision would forever protect a woman’s right to choose. We also believed that access to safe, legal abortions would relegate to the ash heap of history the home-induced abortions using toxic, poisonous chemicals or the back-alley horrors of knitting needles and coat hangers. Will we be proven wrong? And will women be returned once again to the uncertainties and dangers that women who came before us were forced to face?

The post Abortion: as old as pregnancy itself appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Missouri Governor Eric Greitens has gone out of his way to make things as difficult as possible for women seeking reproductive health services and abortions. Before last week, Missouri’s restrictive laws had already reduced abortion services to one location in the entire state. But that wasn’t enough for Greitens. He called a special session of the Missouri legislature specifically to deal with abortion issues—and specifically  to make things worse—and  the legislature obliged.

Republican Gov. Eric Greitens has said he called the special session on abortion in reaction to the St. Louis ordinance banning discrimination in employment and housing based on “reproductive health decisions” and a federal judge’s ruling that struck down some Missouri abortion restrictions passed in previous legislative sessions.

The ruling, which the state is appealing, tossed out requirements that doctors who perform abortions have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals, and that clinics meet hospital-like standards for outpatient surgery.  Greitens wants lawmakers to enact other restrictions on clinics in place of those that were struck down.

Here’s what he got in the special session: The latest piece of legislation in Missouri encompasses a long list of new, even harsher regulations. Judge for yourself.

The Missouri legislature has now passed a bill that:

• Allows the state attorney general, not just local prosecutors, to prosecute
  abortion-law violations
• Requires doctors—not nurses, nurse practitioners or other medical
  personal—to explain potential medical risks to women 72 hours before they
  can obtain an abortion
• Establishes surprise, annual inspections of abortion clinics
• Establishes whistle-blower protections for employees of abortion clinics
• Bars local governments from passing ordinances that adversely affect alternative-to-abortion pregnancy centers—the ones that, nationwide, tell women lies and omit information needed for them to make good decisions about their reproductive health.

Of course, these new restrictions will be challenged in court. We can only hope that they will be struck down. They are shockingly harsh. But what is not shocking is the unrelenting effort by Missouri legislators—and now the newly elected Missouri Governor—to go out of their way to block women from exercising their lawful right to make their own health decisions—a right that has been guaranteed by the US Supreme Court since 1973.  Missouri has many problems: This is the one they go to special session on?

The post Missouri’s 2017 abortion law is as harsh as they get appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Do you remember last year’s reports of undecided voters who vowed not to cast ballots in the 2016 presidential election because they just couldn’t see the difference between electing a Republican or a Democratic candidate?

Try convincing women’s health organizations and providers in developing countries around the world of the veracity of that empty argument. You can bet they’d set those non-voters straight without a moment’s hesitation. That’s because as dedicated health professionals they know from first-hand experience that poor women’s reproductive choices, their health, the health of their babies and children, their economic independence, and their very lives often depend on which party’s candidate occupies the White House.

The American president holds sway over women’s health worldwide as a result of policies and priorities concerning the use of foreign-aid funds that fall within the purview of the executive branch. One of those policy decisions concerns the Mexico City Policy or, as it’s more commonly called, the Global Gag Rule. The Global Gag Rule determines how life-saving foreign-aid dollars are spent on women’s health services in developing countries. The decision to enforce the rule or nullify it comes straight out of the Oval Office. On this issue, the difference between Republicans and Democrats could not be more profound.

What is the Global Gag Rule?

The Global Gag Rule was first introduced by President Reagan in 1984. The rule requires that NGOs (foreign non-governmental organizations) certify that they will not “perform or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning” using funds from any source (including privately donated funds or funds from countries other than the U.S.). When the Global Gag Rule is in force, that certification is a pre-condition for receiving funds for family-planning and health-screening assistance from the American government.

Let’s unpack what this means.  What’s not at issue is how overseas organizations spend American aid dollars for abortion services. They don’t. That’s because since 1973 the Helms Amendment has disallowed the use of federal funds for abortion or for providing information about abortion in the U.S. or abroad. What the gag rule seeks specifically to accomplish is to dictate how foreign clinics spend their own private funds in order to be eligible for receiving American aid.

The Global Gag Rule’s history has been depressingly predictable. Democratic presidents, like Clinton and Obama, rescind it. Republican presidents, like the Bushes, reinstate it. The policy has been in effect for seventeen of the past thirty-two years. What happens to the health and well-being of poor women and their newborns and children whose fates fall into the off years seems to have been of no concern to past Republican presidents.

Where does Trump stand in this historical continuum of Republican versus Democratic presidents and their approaches to women’s health issues globally? In January—on January 23 to be exact, just forty-eight hours after the massive Women’s March in Washington—Trump decided to bolster his conservative bona fides with his base by bringing back the gag rule. Perhaps under the influence of Vice-President Mike Pence, who throughout his political career has consistently espoused far-outside-of-the-mainstream views on issues of reproductive health, rape, and choice, Trump signed a presidential memorandum that didn’t just reinstate the gag rule but expanded it. In yet another poorly considered and destructive decision, Trump’s radical expansion means that the gag rule will now apply not just to family-planning assistance but also to “global health assistance furnished by all U.S. government departments or agencies.” What that means is that the Global Gag Rule now applies to American aid to health organizations working to prevent, treat, contain, and eradicate some of the most devastating diseases and epidemics around the world.

What’s the human cost of bringing back the gag rule?

We’ve been here before, so it’s not hard to predict. Health providers in the developing world will lose desperately needed American assistance. The gag rule will make it more difficult for poor women in developing nations to access family-planning services and make informed decisions about their health and the health of their families. There will be more unintended pregnancies, more unsafe abortions, and more maternal and newborn deaths.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, a research and policy organization committed to advancing sexual and reproductive health and rights in the United States and globally, funding provided in 2016 by the U.S. government for contraception (not abortion) prevented 6 million unintended pregnancies, 2.3 million abortions, and 11,000 maternal deaths worldwide.

On Trump’s expansion of the rule, we’ll just have to wait and see how deeply the expansion will impact the effectiveness of the global medical community to prevent and treat disease among the world’s poor.

Simply said, the human cost of the Global Gag Rule will be devastating. For more on how women will be affected, take a look at the International Planned Parenthood Federation video below.

The post The Global Gag Rule Is Back: The Human Cost appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Longtime conservative icon Phyllis Schlafly is in the news again. This time, it’s because she has committed the cardinal sin–in the purist conservative rule book– of endorsing Donald Trump. As a result, she’s about to be booted from the throne she has occupied since the 1970s. The rest of the country may not remember her, but liberals in Missouri sure do: In the 1970s, she was the founder and outspoken leader of the “Stop-ERA” organization that later morphed into the “Eagle Forum.” Through the years, it has been an effective, if disproportionately influential, group that opposes just about anything that might guarantee or expand women’s rights—including those of the reproductive variety.

The purpose of this post is not to rehash Schlafly’s ignominious history of standing in the way of progress for women. In fact, my disdain for her and her ideas make it painful for me just to type her name on my screen.

But now, the Schlafly phenomenon has resurfaced–just when I had almost forgotten how much damage she has inflicted through the years—and how much of a hypocrite she was. [She had a prominent career as a lawyer—leaving her young kids, as I recall, with sitters while she went to law school and worked—circumstances that she derided for others and tried to prevent by blocking passage of the Equal Rights Amendment.]

So now, she’s getting a new 15 minutes of fame. She’s 91—and one of the people plotting to oust here from the Eagle Forum is her own daughter. The renewed publicity — delicious, I must admit — has sparked a memory for me. [Do I now need a “trigger warning” for potential, politically traumatic Schlafly flashbacks?”] Fortunately, this is more of a humorous [I hope] memory. Here it is:

Somewhere in the 1970s, the St. Louis chapter of the National Abortion Rights Action League [NARAL] started holding an annual fundraising auction. It usually took place at the fancy home of a wealthy supporter. [It’s still going on, I think. I just don’t go anymore, because it’s gotten too far into the financial, fashion and social stratosphere for me.] But back then, when people came in blue jeans and ponchos, I attended. I usually bought something—often a work of art or photography by someone local—at a bargain price.

One year, as a joke, the auctioneers offered a framed picture of NARAL’s arch-enemy, Phyllis Schlafly. When the item went up for bid, it had the desired effect–everyone laughed. I don’t think the organizers really expected that anyone would pay even a dollar for such a thing. But I was in a lighthearted and generous mood. And it was for a good cause. So I put in a bid, when no one else would.  It was probably for $100 or even less. And I won.

When I went to claim the loathsome thing, I expected to be booed for even touching it. Instead, I received a round of applause and kudos—for my bravery and sense of humor, I guess.

For several years after that, I schlepped that framed photo with me as a “white elephant” gag gift [and it did, indeed, make many people gag] for birthday parties and other events. It got a laugh, but I kept taking it back home with me because no one ever wanted it.

Many years after it had outlived its usefulness as a political joke, I think I tossed it in a trash can. I know it’s out there somewhere, adding to the pollution in a landfill. But today’s development in the halls of power of the Eagle Forum make me almost regret ditching it. The way things are going in this political year, I could use the chuckle.

The post Phyllis Schlafly: Back in the news, and in my memory appeared first on Occasional Planet.

If you had an abortion in Missouri between 2010 and 2015, you’re on Missouri State Senator Kurt Schaefer’s hit list.

Schaefer, a Republican, demanded that  Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region turn over the list. He made the same demand of a St. Louis-area pathologist.

Schaefer’s excuse? He’s “investigating” those already-proven-bogus allegations that Planned Parenthood sells fetal tissues for profit.  Missouri’s Attorney General has already examined those charges against Planned Parenthood, and found no wrongdoing. Not to mention that the creator of the maliciously edited videos circulated to “prove” the case has been indicted in Houston, TX for creating the misleading videos.

Need I mention that a federal law passed in 1996 sets up strict guidelines for healthcare facilities and providers to protect the private of patients’ healthcare records? It’s a well-known law called HIPAA. And should Schaefer try to say that Planned Parenthood should be exempt from HIPAA protections, he’d be contradicting his party’s own view of Planned Parenthood. In other actions related to Planned Parenthood, Republican lawmakers have made it clear that they view Planned Parenthood as a medical facility. They’ve insisted on a vast range of changes that generally apply to healthcare facilities: hospital-admitting privileges for doctors performing abortions, ambulances on call, hospital-like hallways and driveways. There’s no question that HIPAA applies.

But none of these things has stopped Schaefer. He has not specified what he would do if he got the names, but it’s a scary prospect. One can imagine the abortion-shaming that would follow. And make no mistake, previous actions by Missouri Republican lawmakers demonstrate that they are quite capable and willing to go to extremes.

A St. Louis Post-Dispatch editorial called this latest Republican gambit “a thinly veiled effort to expose the identities of abortion patients as a means of shaming and discouraging other women from exercising their constitutional rights.”

We can only hope that Schaefer is not really serious about this strategy: After all, he’s running for Missouri Attorney General, so attacking Planned Parenthood is good for arousing the base.  And one would expect cooler legal heads to prevail in the courts when this outrageous demand is challenged.

So far, Schaefer has not backed down, and he’s supported by the Missouri Senate’s Rules and Ethics committee, which last week approved a resolution to compel Planned Parenthood’s CEO to “appear before the whole Senate to explain why they should not be punished for failing to comply with the demand.”

He has threatened the CEO of Planned Parenthood with “contempt,” if she does not produce the desired list. That’s pretty ironic. What’s really contemptible is Schaefer’s behavior.

The post MO legislator wants names of women who’ve had an abortion appeared first on Occasional Planet.

A Missouri state representative has pre-filed a bill that would make it as difficult to buy a gun as it is to get an abortion. According to St. Louis Magazine, Democratic State Rep. Stacey Newman’s bill would “require anyone buying a gun to follow the restrictions required of women seeking abortions, including a 72-hour waiting period.”

Newman is a long-time advocate for common-sense gun laws, and also a pro-choice activist, which makes her a fish out of water in the predominantly right-wing-Republican Mo legislature, where she is regularly subjected to jeers, sneers and outright insults. Still, she has courageously drafted House Bill 1397, which states that before Missourians could buy a gun,  they’d have to:

• Meet with a licensed physician to discuss the risks of gun ownership at least 72 hours before attempting to buy a gun and obtain a written notice approval.
• Buy the gun from a licensed gun dealer located at least 120 miles from the purchaser’s legal residence.
• Review the medical risks associated with firearms, including photographs of fatal firearm injuries, and the alternatives to purchasing a firearm, including “materials about peaceful and nonviolent conflict resolution,” with the gun dealer orally and in writing.
• Watch a 30-minute video about fatal firearm injuries. (This requirement mirrors House Bill 124 from last year, which would have required women to watch a video with information about abortion they’re already required to receive from doctors orally and in writing.)
• Tour an emergency trauma center at the nearest qualified urban hospital on a weekend between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m., when gun violence victims are present, and get written verification from a doctor.
• Meet with at least two families who have been victims of gun violence and two local faith leaders who have officiated, within the last year, a funeral for a victim of gun violence who was under the age of 18.

In a state where Republican legislators loudly position themselves as “pro-life” and insist on ever-increasing restrictions on abortion–a constitutionally protected medical procedure–her bill calls their bluff by applying those restrictions equally to the “constitutionally protected” right to bear arms.

In a press release, Newman explained the rationale behind her proposed bill:

If we truly insist that Missouri cares about ‘all life’, then we must take immediate steps to address our major cities’ rising rates of gun violence. Popular proposals among voters, including universal background checks and restricting weapons from abusers and convicted felons, are consistently ignored each session. Since restrictive policies regarding a constitutionally protected medical procedure are the GOP’s legislative priority each year, it makes sense that their same restrictions apply to those who may commit gun violence.

It’s clever. It’s in-your-face. Maybe it’s even a bit tongue-in-cheek. And, of course, it’s doomed to fail in the legislature. But it makes a great point, doesn’t it? What a brilliant idea.

The post Missouri law would apply abortion restrictions to gun purchases appeared first on Occasional Planet.