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.

In 2021, as summer ebbs into fall, Democrats are concerned with a number of issues, but perhaps most importantly, abortion. It has become a wildcard issue because the Supreme Court has rendered a decision regarding it that neither is supreme nor courtly.

Bullies and cowards often travel together, and that is precisely how Republicans have acted regarding the latest legislation from the hallowed halls of the capitol of Texas. The Lone Star state has enacted the strictest abortion law in the land. Essentially it outlaws any abortion that would be performed approximately six weeks following conception. That’s the bullying part – exercising arbitrary and capricious power to encroach on a basic human right. And, of course, the Republicans chose to place far more restraints on the women of Texas rather than the men. In case you have forgotten, men don’t need abortions.

The cowardice angle is that the state is relieved of any enforcement responsibilities. Rather than have state authorities monitor abortion clinics for alleged crimes, the state “farms out” responsibility for enforcement to the citizens of Texas, or for that matter, the citizens of any other state who might happen to be in Texas. They are empowered to sue any woman in Texas who chooses to have a prohibited abortion.

The “infraction” is not settled in criminal court; rather in civil court where the “apprehender” or bounty hunter can seek to recover as much as $10,000 from a fine levied on the woman seeking the abortion. In further acts of cowardice, the law states that not only can a woman receiving an abortion be sued, but any other person who is “complicit” with her can as well. This could be the receptionist at the abortion clinic, the Uber driver who gives her a lift to the clinic, and any healthcare professional who works or volunteers at the clinic.

Indeed, Americans live in a strange country when the supreme court of the land, operating under the jurisdiction of the world’s oldest and presumed fairest constitution, cannot find one, much less dozens of reasons, to rule this sham of a law unconstitutional.

Almost all conservatives vehemently oppose abortion. Is there anything that draws a similar opposition from progressives?

How about gun control? Just as conservatives see abortion as an issue if life, progressives see unfettered gun rights as a matter of life, and death. Ever since 1973, when abortion became legal in the United States in the Roe v. Wade ruling, conservatives have been successful at chipping away at abortion rights to the point where now in Texas, over 85% of what were legal abortions are now against the law. Dozens of other states are fashioning similarly draconian laws.

During that same forty-eight-year period of time since Roe v. Wade, progressives have been trying to chip away at gun rights in the interest of gun safety. In 1973, Richard Nixon was still hanging on to his presidency with its law and order mantra. The rate of violent crime in the United States was growing rapidly. Conservatives favored stricter laws against gun crimes. Some progressives favored stronger penalties as well, but most wanted to deal with the root of the problem, the presence of guns, legal and illegal, on the streets and in the homes of Americans.

How much progress have progressives made in reducing the number and the of guns in America and the power of the types that are legally permitted? The answer is virtually none. In 1994, with Bill Clinton as president, the Democratic Congress passed a ten-year ban with the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act. It did outlaw some powerful weapons, but there was the sunset provision, limiting the restrictions to ten years before the law had to be renewed.

Conservatives were outraged that the bill passed. Less than two months after the bill became law, the first nail was hammered into its coffin as Newt Gingrich and the conservative Republicans took over Congress. By the time that the ten-year life of the bill was over in 2004, Republican George W. Bush was president, and he was in a position to veto any extension of the law. Since that period, gun laws have not been strengthened; they have been weakened.

So, suppose that progressives wanted to counter the strength of guns in America in a fashion similar to what Republicans have done with abortion. If there was to be symmetry in their strategy to what Republicans did, they would choose to not have any have any government agencies or officials involved in enforcing the laws.

Instead, they would set up a bounty system similar to what Texas Republicans have done to curtail abortions. Progressives would pass a law that would enable citizens to monitor the presence of weapons, particularly assault weapons, in the streets, workplaces, schools and homes of America.

That way, progressives could try to be like conservatives and bully their foes. They could establish un-armed posses to travel throughout America, to wherever guns are present. They could courteously go to gun stores, gun shows, bars, gang hideouts and wherever else there might be high concentrations of guns and please ask the owners (legal or illegal) to surrender their weapons in return for a summons to appear in court. This method by progressives to deal with guns would have a parallel construction to how conservatives in Texas are currently dealing with abortions.

Conservatives would be pleased with these parallel laws. All that they would have to do would be to take a picture of a woman about to have an abortion, along with anyone assisting her, and issue a warrant for their arrest. They show up in court and their work is done and they are richer.

Progressives would simply take pictures of people with guns and find a way to serve a warrant on the gun owners and be sure to say ‘please’ when they do so.

This is what conservatives call fair. They can act like bullies and prevent a woman from having control of her body while the other side must forcefully try to confiscate powerful firearms.

Yes, the absurdity is very clear to progressives; not at all to conservatives. This is why conservatives are winning so many of the battles these days. They get to use firearms as their weapon of choice; progressives use a basic right on human reproduction. If you can’t see a power imbalance in this conundrum, look again.

The post Limiting guns vs. limiting abortions: The right wing wins again appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Questions related to reproductive health, and most specifically abortion, are not easy to answer. Choice is the kind of issue that should humble us all and make us want to take all necessary steps to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

In many ways, this issue reflects the ongoing dilemma we have in America between protecting the rights of the individual vs. protecting the common good of our society as a whole. In most cases, I come down on the side of the common good, for example the responsibility of our society to provide affordable health care for all its citizens.

In the case of abortion, we can ask the question, “Who has a more compelling need to have her rights protected in the case of an unwanted pregnancy, the woman carrying the fetus or the state? I take the pro-choice position for this reason: an unwanted pregnancy will present the mother with far more anguish about the decision than it will to the state. The repercussions of the choice that the woman makes has far more of an impact on her life than it does on the state as a whole.

Some may argue that the choice is not between the state and the mother but rather between the fetus and the mother. This is a reasonable argument. My views on this conflict emanate in part from Article I of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states: “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.”

I believe that at the time that a decision must be made about the termination or continuation of a pregnancy the mother is endowed with reason and conscience. I do not believe that about the fetus. No one likes making a choice between two living entities, but just as we often side with a parent rather than a child, I believe we should trust the woman to make the best choice for herself and her family.

In recent years, our political dialogue has been dominated by conservative activists who have taken numerous steps to undermine a woman’s right to choice. Besides restricting a woman’s rights, they have also endangered her health and security For example, there is only one abortion clinic in the state of Missouri, which is operated by Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region. 20% of the PPSLR’s patients drive over 100 miles to receive those services. On top of that burden, Missouri is considering imposing a 72 hour wait period, which would be yet another huge burden for those women coming from more outlying areas.

Instead of limiting accessibility to choice, we should expand the availability of clinics that can counsel women through difficult decisions and provide for her all necessary medical services should she choose to have an abortion. At the very least, no woman should be more than one county away from a licensed choice clinic. Ultimately, abortion care should not just happen in choice clinics, but in standard medical offices and hospitals. Any primary care doctor (internal medicine, family medicine pediatrics/adolescent medicine, or OB/GYN) who is likely to order a pregnancy test should also be able to provide options counseling. Along with decreasing stigma and creating a critical mass of doctors to speak out about the ever-increasing legislation specific to abortion services, this would decrease the distance that women had to drive to access services.

Empathetic and non-judgmental counseling is key to providing an expectant mother with the support that she needs. As a society, we need to work to provide additional counselors who are both trained to deal with choice issues and who temperamentally can be supportive, analytical and empathetic. We also need to train more physicians to perform safe abortions. We must secure choice clinics so that all staff and clients are free of unconstitutional harassment.

Ultimately, the answer we seek is to have fewer unwanted pregnancies. That means making birth control more readily available and affordable. We also need to have sex education classes throughout school for all students, regardless of gender. These courses should include information about the dynamics that exist in dating, relationships, and marriage. Additionally, they should include complete information to students about the availability of resources to help prevent unplanned pregnancies and to help them through ones that do occur.

Our views on choice can be a real litmus test of how much empathy we have for our fellow citizens.  Since Roe v Wade is the law of the land, we should do all that we can to protect a woman’s right to choice.

with help from Miquia Henderson of Medical Students for Choice and Allison Reed

The post As much as ever, in 2014 women deserve the right to choose appeared first on Occasional Planet.

To be an abortion provider in Texas, you have to have “admitting privileges” at a hospital within 30 miles of the facility. That restriction, which recently was first overturned by one judge and then, within days, upheld by the conservative Fifth Circuit Court, is essentially a fraud. Texas is not the only state taking this tack–see Mississippi–but it’s the most recent.

So far, in most mainstream media reports, the effect of the admitting-privileges restriction has been well documented: It’s going to force almost all abortion clinics in Texas to close, making—as anti-choice advocates have hoped for—abortions infinitely more difficult to get and leaving thousands of women– with legitimate reasons to terminate their pregnancies in a way sanctioned by law—with no good options.

Left unmentioned in most media reports is an examination of the term “admitting privileges” itself. Obviously, the admitting-privileges gambit is another ploy to make abortions harder—in some areas virtually impossible–to get, but what is less known is that the concept of admitting privileges is an antiquated notion that is mostly irrelevant in contemporary medical care.

Here’s a formal definition of admitting privileges, from USlegal.com:

Admitting privilege is the right of a doctor, by virtue of membership as a hospital’s medical staff, to admit patients to a particular hospital or medical center for providing specific diagnostic or therapeutic services to such patient in that hospital. Each hospital maintains a list of health care providers who have admitting privileges in that hospital.

Anti-reproductive-rights advocates and legislators would have us believe that, if a medical emergency occurs during an abortion, the doctor in charge needs to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital in order to ensure the safety of the woman. On the surface, that argument sounds plausible.  But, in reality, it’s a fraudulent concept—and proponents know that.

Why? Because, when there’s an emergency, admitting privileges become irrelevant. Under a 1986 federal law known as EMTALA, hospitals are required to provide care to anyone who needs emergency care [with or without insurance, by the way.] This requirement includes pregnant women who need a life-saving abortion, are in labor, or are suffering the effects of a botched abortion. [Sadly, in 2011, a bill was passed in the U.S. House of Representatives that would have allowed hospitals to turn away patients arriving in the ER in need of a life-saving abortion or other medical help related to abortions. Fortunately, that bill went nowhere, but the fact that it was introduced at all is very disturbing. Opponents of that inhumane notion called it the “Let Them Die” bill.]

Think of it this way: If you’re walking down the street and have a heart attack, it doesn’t matter who your personal doctor is, or whether he/she has admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of where you are: You can be taken to any hospital emergency room, get admitted, and receive treatment, even if your doctor isn’t there, and even if you don’t know a doctor within 30 miles of the hospital.

Also, if a woman is at home and experiences a pregnancy-related emergency, emergency responders will transport her to the closest hospital, regardless of where her doctor has “admitting privileges,” and—again, under federal law–she’ll be cared for there, no admitting-privileges questions asked.

It’s also important to realize that the notion of admitting privileges does not jibe with contemporary norms in inpatient hospital care. Today, many hospitals employ staff physicians to provide inpatient care, and whether an abortion provider has admitting privileges at a particular hospital plays little or no role in determining which hospital may be best suited to care for the patient.

So, does the admitting-privileges requirement make abortions safer, as anti-reproductive-freedom legislators would have you believe? Well, of course we want abortions to be safe—and in the vast majority of cases under Roe v Wade—they are, as opposed to what happened in the back-alley, pre-Roe-v-Wade era, when abortions were illegal, unregulated and often dangerous. Given the current state of emergency care and federal law governing such care, the admitting-privileges requirement doesn’t do much to enhance safety. In fact, it may have the exact opposite effect, making legal, safe abortions more difficult to obtain and putting women at even more risk.

The post The “admitting privileges” fraud appeared first on Occasional Planet.

More than 40 years after Roe v. Wade, the war on reproductive rights continues–in fact, it has escalated. State legislators, as well as Congressional representatives–continue to fight the law of the land [while calling themselves devotees of the “rule of law”], public opinion, and the right of women to determine their own futures. Recently, in states such as Texas and Virginia, the war has morphed into a campaign of dirty legislative tricks: changing the date-stamp on an anti-reproductive rights law that a courageous Texas state rep filibustered past the deadline; sneaking provisions–in the middle of the night– into an unrelated motorcycle law that would essentially put Virginia’s reproductive clinics out of business. It’s nastier, sneakier and meaner than ever out there.

Here’s how some political cartoonists see it:

The post The war on reproductive rights: A roundup of political cartoons appeared first on Occasional Planet.

It hasn’t been a banner century for progressives. Not too long I re-read a book that my grandmother, Lucille Milner, wrote in 1954, The Education of an American Liberal. She was truly an activist who was engaged in virtually every area of social reform in the early 20th Century. The work that she and millions of others did paved the way for numerous accomplishments by 1920. These included women’s suffrage and the creation of organizations such as Planned Parenthood and the League of Women Voters.

So we’re now less than eight and a half years from 2020. What have progressives accomplished so far in this first fifth of the twenty-first century? It seems as if we’ve been steamrolled by friend and foe alike.

RH Reality Check recently published a most interesting article in AlterNet called How Abortion Caused the Debt Crisis. You’re probably saying, “Say what?” Actually I think that it makes very clear sense. It’s a reflection of the kind of outside the box thinking that progressives need to utilize more.

If I understand Reality Check correctly, he/she is saying that the anti-choice movement after Roe v. Wade launched a relentless effort by extreme conservatives to do damage to progressives wherever possible. Conservatives were so offended by women having the fundamental right of choice that they ramped up an effort to challenge liberal ideas in every area of public policy.

It was government, specifically the U.S. Supreme Court, that provided the protection that women needed to have control of their reproductive rights. Some of us may have forgotten that Roe v Wade was decided in 1973, during the Nixon Administration. As much as Richard Nixon has been demonized by progressives, he presided over the continuing of and creation of a number of liberal programs while he was president. An insightful description of Nixon’s comfort level with using the federal government to help people in need is presented in an excellent op-ed by Kurt Anderson in the New York Times on August 5, 2011. It is of interest that when David Frost was interviewing Nixon for 28 hours in 1977, none of the four topics that he covered related to domestic policy. They were “Watergate,” “Nixon and the world,” “War at home and abroad,” and “Nixon, the man.”

But extremists on the right saw Roe v Wade as just one area of “federal intrusion” into people’s lives (ironically Roe v Wade actually reduced government intrusion into people’s lives). Conservatives began a full-scale attack on the federal government. Ronald Reagan won the presidency in 1980. While statistics show that he strengthened federal programs, that was not the perception. Even George W. Bush strengthened some government programs because he had no regard for deficit spending (two discretionary wars which were not funded as well as huge tax cuts for the wealthy).

Reality Check’s piece on “How Abortion Caused the Debt Crisis” made me to a 180o turn on a belief that I had held since April, 1970. The first Earth Day was April 22 of that year. Even though I obviously favored environmental protection, I resented the Earth Day movement because I felt that it was siphoning off energy needed to continue to address the issues of civil rights and America’s presence in Vietnam. The “narrowcasting” position that I took over forty years ago possibly had merit then. However conservatives have clearly shown in this century that the way to bully progressives is to “wage war” on all fronts. They don’t give up an inch of ground on any issue unless they are forced to do so.

Thus my suggestion to progressives who want economic reform including as many stimulus programs as are needed to successfully put America back to work is to engage conservatives wherever they choose to do damage to the welfare of the American people. We can no longer back off from engaging in discussion on abortion. We need to protect rights and expand affordability and accessibility. We can’t be silent about gun control when a Congresswoman is shot while conducting an informal outdoor meet and greet. We can’t look the other way when the Environmental Protection Agency is being stripped of its powers. We cannot pretend that the National Endowment for the Arts is not constantly threatened with extinction.

Like conservatives, progressives are currently very active utilizing social media. Facebook is an excellent way to pass the word around and sometimes organize. But this digital town hall does not provide us with commitment to vital issues. We need to augment our use of social media with a renewed effort to challenging conservatives on all social issues that are important to us. We have been intimidated into thinking that these issues are too risky to address. If that is so, what will we say when the limited protections that we have now are further diminished?

My thanks to Reality Check for thinking outside the box and giving me a perspective that I previously did not see. As if I needed another reason to support abortion rights, now I do. It’s all part of a movement to convince the American people that the federal government is very capable of meeting their needs and it is the one institution that can truly protect their rights. Maybe in another forty years I’ll change my mind, but I’m good for now.

The post Social issues trump social media appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Roe v. Wade became the law of the land in 1973.  For many, it is alarming that the Supreme Court had to enforce the U.S. Constitution by prohibiting individual states from criminalizing women living through crisis pregnancies who would otherwise seek legal, medically appropriate services to terminate them.  It is no less alarming that, 37 years after the Supreme Court moved to ensure that the right to choose be exercised legally and safely, the U.S. Congress is about to let the mere potential of the exercise of women’s constitutional right to choose abortion keep 30 million Americans from receiving access to basic healthcare.

Nothing drives home the point that the still-male-dominated government doesn’t trust women, even to exercise a basic civil right guaranteed by the Supreme Court two generations ago, than a healthcare reform package that may well be derailed over what some Congressmen insist allows too free an exercise of that right under the government’s program.  Meantime, where was the vigorous debate over whether and to what extent federal money will be spent on pharmaceuticals that will enable men beyond the age or physical condition permitting a natural ability to fornicate from continuing to do it with medical intervention?  Forget whether or not his doctor believes that his life or health might be at risk from refraining from sex altogether.

The incarnation of the healthcare bill most likely to pass through the reconciliation process – if it comes to pass at all – is guaranteed to include cumbersome and excessive regulations that will require companies administering federal healthcare dollars to discriminate against women.  And these restrictions are in place before even a penny of healthcare reform money is put into the healthcare system by the federal government.  The pace at which these restrictions, which will immediately have a disparately anti-female impact on the risk-pooling landscape under healthcare reform, will manifest in further anti-female market-driven behavior by the insurance industry remains to be seen.  And with the public option off the table, at least in the short term, there is no hope of market correction and equalization through the use of public-policy-driven competitive forces being brought to bear on a skewed market.  Of course, with anti-equal protection zealots dictating every move  Congress makes on healthcare reform, the hope of any public option that would mitigate in favor of equal healthcare rights for women is probably just a pipe dream.

So even in the context of healthcare reform, women are relegated to second-class beneficiaries, if there are to be any beneficiaries at all.  This is exactly why Roe v. Wade still matters and why every day that women remain underrepresented in the federal government is another opportunity for backsliding into further inequality and oppression.  Considering the evolution of the present healthcare measure, none of us – male or female – can afford to live in a post-feminist America.

Photo credit: Getty Images, Inc.

The post Protecting women’s rights in healthcare reform appeared first on Occasional Planet.