Discussion about this post

User's avatar
DrBDH's avatar

There will always be abortions for those wth the right connections (white, middle class, in blue states). The old term of art was "menstrual extraction," allegedly to correct amenorrhea. Two physicians would have to authorize such a procedure. At New York Hospital a physician would approach other physicians in the coat room with a request to second the authorization. My dad (solid FDR-hating Eisenhower Republican) signed many of these. No one was fooled, these were first trimester abortions and, given the diagnostic technology of the time, well past the deadlines set by the troglodytes in the former Confederacy. The poor went to abortionists who made the infamous Dr. Kermit Gosnell look like Albert Schweitzer.

Expand full comment
k_kamath's avatar

The goal at this point may be the extreme laws get struck down, *but* in the opinions a fetus gets legally declared a person. Acknowledged as having its own rights. That has to be the point of resistance. Laws need to be passed drawing the line for the imaginary and hypothetical persons of corporations and unborn. Neither can give testimony, serve on a jury, vote or fulfill any other role of a citizen. Therefore the law should not acknowledge them as a person. If money is speech, a corporation can speak and why not vote? Should a pregnant woman with twins get three votes after heart cells start pulsing at six weeks? Note, that is NOT an actual heart pumping blood. It is cells beginning to function as a proto organ inchoate. So laws must define these matters, just gay marriage became a thing when radical rightwingers sought to deny gays a right to privacy on that basis, since Griswold and other precedent have marriage as a component. So now the prize is establishing person status for a cluster of cells in the womb.

KLK

Expand full comment
10 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?