Childless cat ladies and post-menopausal grandmothers

While the right to an abortion is paramount in this election after the Dobbs decision, it's not just about abortion and child-bearing women.  It's about respecting all women's choices and women's health.

Michelle Obama gave a speech recently.  Joyce Vance wrote about it.

A lot of [...] misogyny has related to menstruation and menopause — health care topics that are still viewed as unserious or, worse, gross and unseemly. Ohio Republican Senate nominee Bernie Moreno remarked that it’s “a little crazy” that women past 50 would vote on the issue of reproductive rights. And puerile jokes denigrating Tim Walz’s push to provide free menstrual products in Minnesota public school restrooms resulted in chants of “Tampon Tim” filling Madison Square Garden at the Donald Trump rally on Sunday night.

[...]

While some in the media have (correctly) characterized Obama’s remarks as a “searing appeal to men” — a plea for awareness of what the women in their lives regularly endure and take pains to keep private — we saw something even more strategic. Yes, she was directly addressing husbands, fathers and sons. But for the women in the crowd, there was cathartic value as well. Obama wasn’t just recognizing these women; she was also connecting the dots from periods to pregnancy to post-menopause.

Here, finally, is the ultimate rejection of everything the GOP’s “Tampon Tim” insult represents. Our periods are not fodder for Republican punchlines, nor is anything else about the complexity of our reproductive lives. We know that if men endured what women go through when it comes to health care, choices would likely be wide open — and care much more freely available.

  MSNBC

This reminds me of the time I said to an ob/gyn that there would be more single child families if men were the ones to get pregnant. And he answered, "Or none if word got around."

[N]ow, a week until Election Day, we hope Michelle Obama has sparked a movement where the Harris campaign — and all of us — will be bolder and more forthright.

[...]

[W]e should all commit to speaking truth to power and not sanitizing our everyday existence. Let’s use words like “cramps” and “hot flashes” and “menopause.” Let’s find ways to show women, especially older women, that they are respected and valued in a culture that has spent too many decades trying to brush them aside. Rejecting the polite euphemisms used to gloss over real medical issues is a start.

[...]

Kamala Harris has committed to shining a spotlight on the voices of women and stories of families affected by abortion bans. While we appreciate the proactive approach and understand the need in a closely fought election to focus on persuadable voters, we hope Harris will not sidestep these other health care topics if she is the next president of the United States.

[...]

By threading the needle between the bloody mechanics of our bodies and bloodier attacks on our bodily autonomy, we can expose the seam that connects those issues. For all women, no matter our age or life stage — and for “the men who love us” — abortion rights are already a national five-alarm fire. If women are forced to go backward, everyone suffers. That’s the real issue here.

Abortion is on the line, but the massive iceberg beneath it includes women’s individual and collective health and dignity. That’s something worth fighting for.

We're not going back.

"The Father of IVF"

Ask him what IVF stands for.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

SCOTUS: when they're needed, they stay silent

The Supreme Court decided not to hear arguments in a case involving Texas that could have provided an answer about whether a state abortion ban conflicts with a federal emergency care law.

The decision is a significant victory for Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) and comes just three months after the court dismissed a similar case involving Idaho, a move that was criticized as a preelection punt that offered no clarity on the issue.

Dismissing the Idaho case did not resolve the underlying legal questions, so the decision not to hear arguments in the Texas case was unexpected.

  The Hill

I don't know. I expect them to do the worst possible thing these days.

The Texas case centers on the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), which requires federally funded hospitals to provide stabilizing care to emergency room patients no matter their ability to pay.

The Biden administration invoked EMTALA in the wake of the Supreme Court decision that overturned Roe v. Wade. The administration said state laws or mandates that employ a more restrictive definition of an emergency medical condition are preempted by the federal statute.

Texas sued the administration shortly after the guidance was issued, arguing the law was improperly applied, and the administration did not follow the appropriate rulemaking process.

A lower court ruled in favor of Texas, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit agreed.

Oh, well, my guess is they would have upheld those decisions anyway.

This way, they don't have to have the negative headlines.

And in related news...

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Gilead, here we come

As the Kansas News Service reports, starting today, abortion providers are supposed to be required to ask patients which of 11 possible reasons is most relevant to their decision to get an abortion. Possible reasons include that the patient cannot financially afford a child or that the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest.

But also today, a Planned Parenthood spokesperson said that the Kansas health department “has stated that it will not enforce this intrusive law, for now” and a health department spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment from the Kansas News Service.

The question is optional — the law states that if someone refuses to answer, their refusal will be recorded. But lawmakers voted down a proposed amendment that would have clarified to patients that the question is optional.

  NPR

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Supreme Court rulings, Wednesday, June 26

Which is as much help as they can give Trump this session without ruling that a president is immune from prosecution for everything and for all time.

And don't forget - the debate is tomorrow.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE 11:19 am:

Who are you kidding?  Take a wild guess.

UPDATE 01:35 pm:  

So, let me ask:  If the document in question is the opinion, why couldn't they announce that opinion today?  They have about 10 decisions to get through in the next 2 days, or they'll have to add extra decision days in July.  They only did two today.

Let me guess:  They want to postpone the immunity decision until they are absolutely 100% positive there is no way on earth Judge Chutkan can get the January 6 trial underway before November.  Am I close?

Anyway, this decision is the absolute least they could do in this case. Allow emergency cases to be treated. Wow. How liberal.

Okay, so maybe they'll reconsider after the debate/election when it comes back around.

UPDATE 02:24 pm:

UPDATE 06/27/2024:

But it's to PROTECT the lives of the unborn, right?

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE 06/27/2024:

Read the room, fella

Also, check your make-up before you go on camera.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Mifepristone access safe for now

The plaintiffs were doctors.

Who will try next?

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE 09:50 am:

A cynical person or a realist.

My fellow Americans

This is a sad story.  The comments, however, are despicable.  This thread does not engender faith - or even encourage compassion or favor - toward fellow Americans.  

Don't read it if you want to maintain hope.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Are they TRYING to lose votes?

Like abortion was, right?

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE 10:07 pm:

Dystopian? Fascist? Authoritarian?

This kind of talk would have been unthinkable a decade ago.

[U.S. Sen. Katie Britt (R-AL)], who came to the forefront of the political conversation following her heavily-mocked response to President Joe Biden's 2024 State of the Union address, announced the More Opportunities for Moms to Succeed (MOMS) Act. The bill would create a registry of pregnant women, who would then be steered to support services that include "crisis pregnancy centers" — usually faith-based groups designed to shame or trick women seeking abortions into keeping their pregnancies anyway.

  Raw Story

That's not the worst that could happen by putting women on a government registry. Jesus Christ.

Happy Mother's Day.

By the way, she opposes putting gun owners into a government database.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

It's Sunday

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

It's Sunday

It's definitely not the first time "Christians" have made people suffer (particularly women).  It's still evil.  Evil in the name of God.

The court noted the case would remain pending before them but did not include any timeline on when a full ruling might be issued.

[...]

"[P]eople should not need to beg for healthcare in a court of law.”

  CNN

I've been avoiding posting about this case, and I don't know why.  But it involves a woman whose pregnancy has been determined to possibly risk her life and her future ability to have children.  She filed suit to be allowed to have an abortion.  She was granted the right in an emergency ruling from the district court.  Texas' evil AG, Ken Paxton, filed suit to overturn the ruling and promised to prosecute anyone who has anything to do with giving a woman an abortion.  Looks like evil won - for now.  

“Ms. Cox is currently 20 weeks pregnant, and she has been to three different emergency rooms in the last month due to severe cramping and unidentifiable fluid leaks,” according to the lawsuit. “Because Ms. Cox has had two prior cesarean surgeries (‘C-sections’), continuing the pregnancy puts her at high risk for severe complications threatening her life and future fertility, including uterine rupture and hysterectomy.”

The lawsuit says Cox’s baby was diagnosed with trisomy 18 and is not expected to live more than a few days outside the womb. “Ms. Cox’s physicians have informed her that their ‘hands are tied’ and she will have to wait until her baby dies inside her or carry the pregnancy to term, at which point she will be forced to have a third C-section, only to watch her baby suffer until death,” the lawsuit states.

[...]

Texas law prohibits abortion after approximately six weeks, except to save the life of the mother or to prevent “substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function, other than a psychological condition.”

  CNN

Because in Texas, women are merely vessels. Their minds are irrelevant.

Cox’s OB-GYN, Dr. Damla Karsan, has a “good faith belief” that Cox falls under the legal exception to the abortion ban, but can’t provide the abortion without a court order because she “cannot risk loss of her medical license, life in prison, and massive civil fines” if her belief is not accepted by the courts.

And this is why the state should not be involved in medical decisions.

If the Texas Supreme Court does not allow the abortion to go forward, I presume this case would go to the Supreme Court of the United States.  After Dobbs, they better not refuse to take it.

And please God (yeah, sarcastic), may the woman get her abortion before it's too late.

UPDATE 12/11/2023:

I worry Texas will try to arrest her.

UPDATE 12/11/2023 07:22 pm:  She was right to leave.

So if the doctor's belief isn't enough, whose opinion matters?  The governor's? Church lady's?  

UPDATE 12/12/2023:

That the majority that penned Dobbs and the Texas Supreme Court decided that they all knew better is conclusive proof that nobody cared enough about Kate Cox’s next pregnancy, or her desire for an actual viable baby.

[...]

Who is responsible for this horrific turn of events? Those who opt to vote for politicians who so fetishize pregnancy and childbirth that they will let courts mandate that nonpregnancies and unsuccessful childbirth are materially more important than actual pregnant people and actual viable babies. And in the same breath, these people scream that they won’t let anyone tell their kids what books to read. They won’t let anyone tell them if they can purchase a gun. They have less than no patience for any entity that purports to regulate how they speak. But for some reason, they expect pregnant people to cede complete and unbounded authority to anyone with a legal opinion on maternal health care, because the last remaining class of people who are wholly imaginary in America is the pregnant ones.

[...]

It is one thing for jurists to inhabit a world in which fake people with fake facts drive doctrine for the rest of us. It’s another matter entirely when actual people with real facts—real pain, real suffering, real bleeding, and real babies who will really die or suffer before they die—don’t matter enough to inspire judges to act with humanity. Dobbs was never about protecting mothers, or their babies. It was about control, and the abject awfulness of what the state of Texas has imposed on Kate Cox, her family, and her doctor makes that plain. It is about pretending to respect maternity and modesty and medicine while insulting all three, and calling it “law.”

  Slate

SCOTUS stays mifepristone ruling

I have to wonder if their ruling would have  been the same had Clarence Thomas revelations not brought the heat of attention on the court right now.

UPDATE 04/22/2023:

No surprise from those two, a couple of the most hateful men on the planet.

Onward to Gilead

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

When did Colorado become a blue state?

There oughta be a law

This is the Texas judge who handed down the mifepristone ruling that would severely curtail its use.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE 04/16/2023:

Ramifications of a mifepristone ban

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

In the battle for women's health

Earlier this month, U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk issued a preliminary injunction to vacate the FDA's approval of the drug [mifepristone] altogether.

The FDA responded by requesting an emergency stay of the decision, elevating the case for the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to weigh in.

The appellate panel then issued a complicated ruling on the injunction, siding in part with the FDA and part with the anti-abortion coalition.

[...]

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito has placed a hold on a lower court ruling that restricts access to the abortion drug mifepristone until Wednesday night. Alito also instructed that any responses be filed by April 18 at noon.

[...]

Portions of a Texas district court's order that limits the drug would have otherwise taken effect April 15, but Alito's order put it on pause.

[...]

The administration brief calls the lower court rulings "unprecedented" and says they "unleashed regulatory chaos" by suspending the existing FDA-approved conditions of use for mifepristone."

[...]

"The district court countermanded the scientific judgment the FDA has maintained across five administrations; nullified the approval of a drug that has been safely used by millions of Americans over more than two decades; and upset reliance interests in the health care system that depends on the availability of mifepristone as an alternative to surgical abortion for women who choose to lawfully terminate their early pregnancies." The administration said those harms would be felt throughout the nation because mifepristone has lawful uses in every state, regardless of whether abortion is legal, for instance, to treat women who have miscarried.

[...]

Meanwhile, a competing ruling out of Washington state could limit the Texas injunction's reach.

The final ruling from the appellate panel led the DOJ to appeal even higher to the Supreme Court in hopes of ensuring access to the drug is fully restored.

  NPR

What isn't explained in this article is the extreme bullshit of having the original suit brought by some doctors who claimed standing to sue by virtue of the fact that someone might some day come to them for treatment after having had complications from the use of mifepristone. (Additionally, they called the cramping and expulsion of uterine material "side effects" of the drug. That's not side effects, that's effects. That's what the drug is supposed to do. That's how a pregnancy ends.)

And never mind that this situation has never been presented to them, and is unlikely to ever be presented to them due to the drug's safety record (safer than Tylenol), and the probability that if someone did have complications they would go to the doctor who prescribed mifepristone to them in the first place and not to these assholes.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE 02:58 pm:  Well, lookie here...

So much slime in the "conservative" world.

What Dobbs hath wrought

Read this thread.