Subscribe via RSS Feed

Category: reproductive freedom

Who radicalized Robert Dear?

[ 82 ] December 10, 2015 |

Is a question I’m not sure this society is equipped to address. However, the New York Times is almost ready to concede that his motivation has something to with anti-abortion politics.

“I’m guilty. There’s no trial,” the accused mass killer Robert L. Dear Jr. told a startled courtroom here on Wednesday. “I’m a warrior for the babies.”

It was a bizarre development in a horrific case, with Mr. Dear using his first court appearance since the deadly rampage at a Planned Parenthood clinic to disrupt the proceedings. There were angry outbursts, declarations of guilt and expressions of anti-abortion politics.

“Let it all come out,” he said in one of a series of outbursts that seemed to remove any doubt about his motivation. “The truth.”

I’m not seeing the bizarre about a terrorist using a court hearing to spout bits of his manifesto, but that’s just me.  I’m also not sure what “seemed” is doing in the last paragraph, but I’m surprised it hasn’t cracked under the strain.

And over in The Corner, you will not be shocked to learn that David French is running around with a rather tattered fig leaf:

Rather than further publicizing the words of Robert Dear, I prefer the words of the Southern Baptist Convention’s powerful Nashville Declaration, proclaiming the pro-life movement’s repudiation of violence to protect the lives of the unborn.
[Tl; dr – Those guys aren’t with us!]

And then, as it so often does in NROville, it gets weird:

As I said in a piece days after the shooting, There is no coherent moral argument for pro-life violence. That’s precisely why it is so rare, and that’s precisely why it will remain rare until America has a moral awakening, reverses Roe, and protects all human life — from conception until natural death.

No coherent moral argument sums up everything that comes out of places like NRO. If I’m reading this correctly, he contends that pro-life violence is rare. (For a given value of rare that allows NROites & Pals to poo-poo anti-abortion violence committed by Christians while they soil their underpants over violence committed by Muslims.) However, it won’t be rare after America decides that life begins at conception and ends at natural death?

I’m convinced!


Sure, he doesn’t believe in the right to privacy, but he’s solid on the other issues!

[ 102 ] November 22, 2015 |

Or – An inquiry into the potential limits of “But the other guy is worse!” as a progressive political theory.

And John Bel  Edwards’ victory over David “Depends on Me” Vitter is as good a place as any to start.

In Louisiana’s gubernatorial contest you had a rancid Republican who has a larger than normal negative impact on the environment because disposable diapers last FOREVER.

On the other you had a Democrat whose views on the right to privacy and access to health care have devolved in less than a decade. In 2006:

Edwards indicated support for the following principles regarding abortion

  • Abortion is the freedom of choice, between the appropriate parties and their higher power.

In 2014, Edwards voted Yes on a number of bills supported by the fetus protection racket, including HB1274 (amended section underlined):

When interpreting this Part, any ambiguity shall be interpreted to preserve human life, including the life of an unborn child if the qualified patient is pregnant and an obstetrician who examines the woman determines that the probable postfertilization age of the unborn child is twenty or more weeks and the pregnant woman’s life can reasonably be maintained in such a way as to permit the continuing development and live birth of the unborn child, and such determination is communicated to the relevant classes of family members and persons designated in R.S. 40:1299.58.5.
Here’s the statute prior to the amendment, if your day is not complete without a little state law.

(And if the wording of the law rings a bell for non-Louisianans, it may be they’re thinking of case of  Marlise Munoz, the Texas woman a hospital kept on life support against her family’s wishes, because she was pregnant.)

In short, when Edwards talks about his anti-choice chops, he is not idly boasting. It’s hard to imagine an anti-privacy bill that he wouldn’t sign. Yet because he ran against someone who is far worse, some people are hastening to point out that being anti-privacy, anti-health care, and – in the case of keeping women on life support so they can incubate a fetus – anti-human dignity, isn’t that big a deal.

And apparently, it will remain not that big a deal. For the foreseeable future, the “Less of a walking nightmare than the Republican Candidate” bar will be easily cleared by anyone who isn’t a convicted mother stabbing father rapist, or Dagon. (And I’m not so certain about Dagon.) If one says that being anti-privacy is an acceptable stance for a Democratic candidate, what is unacceptable?

I’m thinking now of Sen. Joe Manchin, v. 3.0 (D-Mountaintop Removal). He was greeted with cries of relief by Democratic voters, and is now greeted with loud gagging noises, and rightfully so. What a Grecian-Formula’d knob the man is. However, the Just say no to deal breaker/purity politics theory dictates that if he receives the nomination Democratic voters should line up behind Joe because … he’s not for total repeal of Obamacare? Maybe? [Fingers crossed!]

But if he gets re-elected on the basis of not being as bad as the Republican candidate (who will of course be worse, even if they have to lure Cheney to the state with a trail of newborn babies’ hearts), where is his incentive to stop fighting to allow coal companies to remove the mountains from the mountain state?

Exactly. The same place as Edwards’ incentive not to further erode the privacy rights and access to health care of half the state’s population. (And to rein in fracking, apparently.)

Where’s the progress in that?


There Is A Progressive Agenda, And It’s Pressing

[ 30 ] July 3, 2013 |

As a follow up to my initial response to the question of whether the progressive agenda is exhausted, I have a longer piece up about the major issues progressives are fighting for at various levels.

In addition to the problems that are widely recognized about unsolved, I argue that we shouldn’t be complacent about same-sex marriage:

Last Wednesday’s Supreme Court opinions striking down DOMA and denying the standing of California’s ban same-sex marriage ban are a reason to celebrate. But, the decisions are cause for a nice mid-priced New York Riesling more than a bottle of Dom Pérignon. We shouldn’t forget that, as of now, most Americans live in states where same-sex marriage is illegal. The strong trend in public opinion favoring same-sex marriage is important, but it doesn’t mean that a national right to same-sex marriage is at all inevitable. Many transformations that seem inevitable turn out to be anything but. Chief Justice Warren Burger thought that the Supreme Court had permanently ended the American death penalty by striking down existing statues in 1972; by 1976, a majority of states had them again, with Supreme Court approval. American politics favors inertia—not only can many states can hold out against trends in national opinion, but public opinion majorities don’t guarantee legislative results. The Republican fundraisers who pressured marginal Republican legislators to pass same-sex marriage legislation in New York aren’t going to be similarly pressuring lawmakers in Utah and Alabama anytime soon. The Supreme Court might create a national right to same-sex marriage, but it might not (and has already passed on one opportunity to do so.) Until it does, we should be clear that extending same-sex marriage rights is going to be a long struggle that will experience a lot of setbacks. Liberals who live in more progressive jurisdictions shouldn’t be complacent about the greater number of Americans whose rights go unrecognized. To paraphrase the sportswriter Bill James, if a national right to same-sex marriage comes, it will be not as day follows night but as a marriage follows a wedding. A lot of work is ahead, and nothing is inevitable.

I suppose I should also note that I intentionally avoided drawing distinctions between “liberal” and “left” agendas, largely because in my experience this leads to exceedingly unproductive and unilluminating leftier-than-thou and/or more-respectable-than-thou ideological positioning contests.


[ 43 ] May 13, 2013 |

Guilty on three counts of murder.

My position on what this means obviously hasn’t changed. The summary is that using the Gosnell case as a pretext reason to restrict or ban safe abortions makes about as much sense as banning appendectomies because a surgeon committed Medicaid fraud.

Kirsten Powers Will be the Star Teacher At Non-Sequitur University

[ 87 ] May 6, 2013 |

Kirsten Powers attempts to advance the argument that the Gosnell case means that we should shut down abortion clinics that don’t act illegally. She inevitably fails miserably:

Abortion rights advocates have argued that there is nothing to see here. Move along. This is what illegal abortion looks like, they say.

But Gosnell’s clinic was not illegal. It was a licensed medical facility.

Uh, what? The fact that Gosnell worked in a “licensed medical facility” doesn’t mean that everything he did in the clinic is therefore legal, or that he was in compliance with his license. By the same logic, the dentist who exposed his patients to AIDS and hepatitis couldn’t have violated the law, because after all he had a license. If Gosnell performed medically unnecessary third-trimester abortions, or committed infanticide, or put his patients at risk by not properly maintaining his facilities, these things all violate Pennsylvania law even if he had a license.

And from this non-sequitur to another:

Gosnell was not forced to operate in the dark because of anti–abortion rights regulations. It’s the opposite: he was able to flourish—pulling in $1.8 million a year—because multiple abortion rights administrations decided that to inspect his clinic might mean limiting access to abortion

This is all nonsense. First of all, one of the administrations in question was famously opposed to abortion rights. (Who can forget when the Democratic Party did the worst thing in American history by denying Saint Robert Casey the chance to denounce a core party principle without even supporting the party’s candidate for president at the party’s convention? His son, of course, didn’t and doesn’t favor abortion rights either.) And while the Ridge administration was nominally pro-choice, its failure to inspect abortion clinics was a result of its Republicanism, not its pro-choice principles.

How is this OK? Even liberal Europe gets this. In France, Germany, Italy, and Norway, abortion is illegal after 12 weeks. In addition to the life-of-mother exception, they provide narrow health exceptions that require approval from multiple doctors or in some cases going before a board. In the U.S., if you suggest such stringent regulation and oversight of later-term abortions, you are tarred within seconds by the abortion rights movement as a misogynist who doesn’t “trust women.”

First of all, you can’t just look at laws on the statute books and determine how accessible abortions are. The fact that permission is required from doctors after 12 weeks tells us very little about what standards are applied in practice, and as the Supreme Court of Canada explained in great detail 25 years ago the availability of abortion under such laws varies wildly. And, again, you can’t abstract these statutory requirements from the larger context of abortion politics that determines the general accessibility of abortion. I would gladly take French abortion policy over Pennsylvania’s, because inter alia this would mean repealing the Hyde Amendment and making abortions easily accessible at public hospitals, as well as doctors making decisions without being harassed by a lobby that opposes the availability of safe abortions (for the wrong kind of women.) Virtually no American anti-choicers (including, it’s safe to say, Powers) would agree, of course.

And finally:

Additionally, there is no upside in our media culture to challenging this sacred cow.

Yes, except for the fact that advancing these views mean there will pretty much always be room for you on our nation’s op-ed pages, or its virtual equivalents like The Daily Beast. Will people stop silencing Kirsten Powers already?

…see also McEwan and Digby.

5 Myths About Roe v. Wade

[ 138 ] January 22, 2013 |

Roe v. Wade turns 40 today.  This seems like a good opportunity to address some of the false things that are routinely said about it:

  • Roe is unpopular.   This is a particular favorite of Ben Wittes, who has argued that Roe has undermined the popularity of abortion rights.   The main problem with this argument is that Roe has been and remains overwhelmingly popular:
  • Roe created the anti-choice movement.Longtime readers will know this is a hobbyhorse of mine, and I’ve written about it at great length.    The short version is that the idea that we would have arrived at the same place with less conflict had the Court not intervened is ahistorical nonsense.   Opposition to abortion had already stopped abortion legalization at the state level by 1971, and there’s no evidence for the claim that judicial opinions produce more backlash than policies announced by the other branches.
  • Overturning Roe would “return the issue to the states.” This  all-too-frequent assertion runs into one of the most enduring laws of American politics: “nobody actually cares about federalism.”  Show me a Republican congressman who advocates that Roe be overturned to “send the issue back to the states,” and I’ll show you someone who has not only voted for every federal abortion regulation to come down the pike but advocates a constitutional amendment that would make abortion first-degree murder in all 50 states.
  • Overturning Roe would be no big deal for abortion rights. Again, this is very wrong. The fact that national majorities support Roe certainly doesn’t mean that Republican majorities in a substantial number of states won’t recriminalize abortion if it is overruled.   Equally problematic is the argument you hear sometimes that overruling Roe would be OK because it would increase mobilization among pro-choice groups.   This argument runs into the same problem as arguments that it might be worth throwing the election to a Republican because this will generate more (ineffectual) opposition — pro-choice mobilization isn’t just an end in itself; it’s designed to, you know, secure public policy that protects the reproductive freedom of women.  The most sophisticated and highly motivated lobbying strategy by pro-choice groups won’t make a legislature dominated by reactionary Republicans pro-choice.  As I have argued elsewhere, the argument that overturning Roe would have some secret political advantages are “only compelling if the value of protecting a woman’s right to choose is accorded almost no weight.”
  • Roe is only a rich woman’s right. This critique from the left actually has a plausible basis and a limited amount of truth.   Since the Supreme Court has narrowly upheld the constitutionality of the Hyde Amendment and the regulations upheld by Casey disproportionately burden poor women,  the current legal regime protects abortion access for poor women much less than it should.   But even as diluted by Republican-dominated courts, Roe matters to poor women most of all. Affluent women, who will generally either have the connections to obtain gray market abortions or the resources to travel to a jurisdiction where abortion is legal, are likely to have reasonable access to abortion under any plausible legal regime.   To women who lack these advantages, Roe matters substantially, even though both courts and legislatures should be doing more to protect abortion access for poor women.  (Amanda has more on this general point.)

Not Just Bad Policy, Unconstitutional Policy

[ 36 ] April 13, 2012 |

As I mentioned below, yesterday Arizona governor Jan Brewer signed a draconian abortion law that, among other things, effectively bans abortions after 18 weeks after conception. This law, like other attempts by state legislatures to ban pre-viability abortions, represents a substantial dilution of a woman’s right to choose. In addition, it’s worth noting that the law is plainly unconstitutional under current law.

Planned Parenthood v. Casey was a substantial retreat from Roe v. Wade, and a lot of the legislation passed by state legislatures that restricts a woman’s reproductive freedom was encouraged by the largely toothless “undue burden” standard the Court established to evaluate abortion regulations. But bans on abortion after 18 or 20 weeks — bans that precede viability — are clearly unconstitutional even under Casey. From the joint opinion written by Justices O’Connor, Kennedy, and Souter:

It must be stated at the outset and with clarity that Roe’s essential holding, the holding we reaffirm, has three parts. First is a recognition of the right of the woman to choose to have an abortion before viability and to obtain it without undue interference from the State. Before viability, the State’s interests are not strong enough to support a prohibition of abortion or the imposition of a substantial obstacle to the woman’s effective right to elect the procedure.

The state cannot prohibit abortion before viability — the Court’s opinion is unambiguous on this point. There is no “fetal pain” exception, and nor should there be. As Caitlin Borgmann of the CUNY School of Law has shown, the “fetal pain” justification is a political strategy used by the anti-choice movement to equate fetuses with children, while “the research on fetal pain is at best inconclusive.” Whether Justice Kennedy would stand by the opinion he signed should a case concerning the constitutionality of such laws come to the Supreme Court is unclear. But as of now, the lower courts are required to stop such bills from going into effect by the plain language of Supreme Court precedent.

Criminalizing Gender: Kansas, Mississippi, and Alabama Editions

[ 55 ] June 25, 2011 |

While yesterday provided a significant victory for progressive politics (and general ‘right thing to do’-ness), the forces of moral fascism reactionary citizenry continue unabated.

In Kansas, a new licensing law for abortion providers has passed, under the ruse of establishing “safety standards” in a state described by the head of Operation Rescue as “the Wild West for abortionists for as long as anyone can remember.”

There are precisely three providers in the entire state.

For now.  It’s absurd to imply that providers do not conduct business in line with professional standards of care, and this isn’t about that, obviously.

“These requirements range from the impossible to the absurd,” said Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights. “They’re not designed to protect patient safety; they’re designed to shut down abortion providers.”

And of course, safety standards will be somewhat difficult to enforce when reproductive freedom is criminalized.

Moving south, The Guardian has a good piece describing “the creeping criminalisation of pregnant women as a new front in the culture wars over abortion, in which conservative prosecutors are chipping away at hard-won freedoms by stretching protection laws to include foetuses, in some cases from the day of conception.”

In Mississippi, this takes the guise of a law that makes miscarriages suspect under “depraved-heart murder” of the unborn foetus, which carries a mandatory life sentence.  In one Mississippi case, the defense

have argued before Mississippi’s highest court that her prosecution makes no sense. Under Mississippi law it is a crime for any person except the mother to try to cause an abortion.  “If it’s not a crime for a mother to intentionally end her pregnancy, how can it be a crime for her to do it unintentionally, whether by taking drugs or smoking or whatever it is,” Robert McDuff, a civil rights lawyer asked the state supreme court.

In Alabama, the “criminal endangerment law”, originally passed with the goal of protecting the children of hobbyists running meth labs, has been employed in prosecutions not consistent with the original intent of the state legislature.  The most grotesque case discussed in the article is that of Amanda Kimbrough, who

is one of the women who have been ensnared as a result of the law being applied in a wholly different way. During her pregnancy her foetus was diagnosed with possible Down’s syndrome and doctors suggested she consider a termination, which Kimbrough declined as she is not in favour of abortion.

The baby was delivered by caesarean section prematurely in April 2008 and died 19 minutes after birth.

Six months later Kimbrough was arrested at home and charged with “chemical endangerment” of her unborn child on the grounds that she had taken drugs during the pregnancy – a claim she has denied.

So here we have a woman, faced with a probable Down’s baby, who rejected termination as she doesn’t believe in abortion.  Not exactly the archtype target of such legislation, yet her case is before a higher Alabama court on appeal.


[ 29 ] April 10, 2011 |

The Democrats signed off on this as part of their vaunted compromise rolling over and playing dead?  The following is buried at the end of the NYT story linked above:

District of Columbia officials expressed outrage on Saturday about two provisions of the budget deal between Democrats and Republicans, saying they dictate how the capital should spend money. One bans it from using its own locally raised funds to pay for abortions for poor women. The second is a federally financed school voucher program, which city officials said was unnecessary because 40 percent of students already go to public charter schools.

I’m stunned.  I shouldn’t be, but I am.

This Has to be a Fake

[ 23 ] March 25, 2011 |

Not even freedom-hating anti-choice wingnuts could fail to see the irony in this, unless they don’t understand history.

Oh.  Hang on.

Poll at The Stranger here (update: correct link now) to vote this “the worst ad placement ever”.  h/t Richard Elgar.

One of the commenters in one of the threads I pursued to track down the original source indicated that the photo is from the Northern KY / Cincy area.  This is the chain.  Fortunately, LGM has a field office in the area to investigate the veracity of the photo.

Defending the Indefensible

[ 0 ] October 18, 2007 |

Ross Douthat tries to defend ineffective and inequitable abortion criminalization policies:

Whereas we know that when abortion was legalized in America in the early 1970s, the abortion rate went up dramatically; we also know that Western Europe, which has lower abortion rates than the U.S., also has (somewhat) more restrictive abortion laws. Which suggests if you’re serious about reducing the abortion rate in America (as opposed to taking the “more abortion is a good thing” line that Matt espouses), the Edelstein-Saletan answer is something of a cop-out; if some kind of restriction isn’t on the table, you probably aren’t going to get very far.

A few obvious problems here:

  • First of all, the comparative analysis cuts both ways. Since Western Europe also for the most part lacks powerful movements dedicated to opposing rational sex education and access to contraception for unmarried people and also has a stronger safety net (making it easier for poor women to bear children), its lower abortion rates don’t answer the dispute here; they’re just as consistent with the thesis that these policies lower abortion rates more than criminalization. Douthat also ignores Latin America, which has pretty much the exact mix of policies favored by most American anti-choicers (abortion bans, reactionary sexual and gender mores, threadbare safety net) and also has sky-high abortion rates.
  • Douthat also makes the common error of conflating the quantity of formal restrictions on abortion with access to abortion. Since most European abortion restrictions are either similar to ones on the books in most American states or affect only the tiny fraction of late term abortions, the assumption that European women have less access to abortion than American women on the ground is highly problematic. Moreover, of the common non-ban regulations the most important is denying funding for poor women — which is available in most of Europe and not in most American states. And finally, Canada — which has almost entirely unregulated and state funded abortions — also has lower abortion rates than the United States; the same is true of the Netherlands, which effectively has state-funded abortion on demand (unless you consider showing a “state of distress” after 12 weeks is a difficult standard) for pre-viability abortions. This suggests again that the level of abortion regulation has fairly marginal effects on abortion rates.
  • Finally, Douthat entirely ignores the key implications of the study. How could the marginal-at-best reductions in abortion rates possibly justify the arbitrary enforcement, grossly inequitable effects, and the great harm caused to women that are all endemic to the legal regimes Douthat advocates? Like most anti-choicers, Douthat simply hides under the table when the question comes up.

The "Pro-life" Culture of Death

[ 0 ] October 17, 2007 |

Bush’s new nominee to oversee family planning programs doesn’t like contraception; no surprise there. Ann notes that “pro-lifers” don’t really see anything in it for them if middle-class families have health insurance for their children. After explaining the deadly consequences of the new abortion ban in Nicaragua, Jill sums up:

In the meantime, countries with the most “pro-life” laws have higher abortion rates than the Western European countries with the most liberal abortion laws in the world. A large part of the difference is contraception — Eastern Europe has seen a 50 percent decrease in its abortion rate since contraception became more widely available post-Communism. And yet contraception is something else that mainstream anti-choice groups oppose.

Yes, you read that right: Mainstream “pro-life” organizations are opposed to contraception as well as abortion. They’re just keeping quiet about it because they know it’s an unpopular position, and they know it outs them as hypocrites who put ideology over human life. But the fact remains that none of the well-known and influential national anti-choice groups have come out in support of contraception access. None of them promote the very thing that has been proven, time and again, to lower the abortion rate.

What do they promote? Abstinence until marriage and embracing pregnancy and childbirth. (Apparently, no married woman has ever wanted an abortion or experienced pregnancy-related complications). Other than that, anti-choice groups offer no real alternative to women who don’t want to be pregnant, or women who don’t have a choice to say no to sex, or women whose pregnancies threaten their life or their health. They offer no solution to the problem that kills nearly 70,000 women every year, other than “don’t have sex outside of marriage; only have sex if you’re willing to give birth; and abortion is wrong, don’t have one.”

That isn’t working. It has never worked.


So far, “pro-life” groups have been non-responsive to the dead bodies in their wake. They are, however, mobilizing around the world to spread policies like Nicaragua’s far and wide. They are actively seeking to outlaw abortion in the United States, and in the meantime trying to limit access to it. Right now they’re in Aurora, Illinois, opposing Planned Parenthood. They’re also the base of a Republican party that regularly launches assaults at children and families. The right-wing opposition to children’s health care is just the start; 100 percent of the country’s worst legislators for children are “pro-life.” The global gag rule, which cuts off U.S. funding to any NGO that so much as mentions the world “abortion,” ends up de-funding health clinics that provide contraception, condoms and HIV prevention. As much as anti-choice leaders claim to value life and dislike abortion, their actions don’t back it up.

Dead sluts would seem to be the price the forced pregnancy lobby is willing to pay for…whatever it is that abortion criminalization is supposed to accomplish. Even “Feminists [sic] For Life [sic]” take no position on contraception other than to express concern “that certain forms of contraception have had adverse health effects on women.” To state the obvious, any position that expresses concern for fetal life while being indifferent to or actively opposing policies meant to reduce unwanted pregnancies is a complete fraud.

Page 1 of 812345...Last »