#abortion restrictions put lives in danger

[kp777]

By Jessica Corbett

Common Dreams

April 24, 2024

"At its core, this Supreme Court decision will reflect who we are becoming as a society."

Less than a month after a key abortion pill hearing, the right-wing U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday heard arguments for another major reproductive rights case—one out of Idaho that could impact healthcare for pregnant women and people across the country.

Idaho is among the over 20 states that have tightened restrictions on abortion since the high court's right-wing majority reversed Roe v. Wade nearly two years ago with Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. Since August 2022, abortions have been banned in the state except for reported cases of rape or incest or when "necessary to prevent the death" of the pregnant person.

"If the court does not uphold emergency abortion care protections, this ruling will have devastating consequences for pregnant people."

Before Idaho's near-total ban on abortion took effect, U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill barred enforcement of it to the extent that it conflicts with the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), a 1986 federal law requiring emergency departments that accept Medicare to provide "necessary stabilizing treatment" to any patient with an emergency medical condition.

The Biden administration argues that such care includes abortion; Idaho's Republican policymakers—backed by the far-right Christian Alliance Defending Freedom—disagree. The U.S. Supreme Court in January paused Winmill's order and agreed to hear arguments in Moyle v. United States and Idaho v. United States.

As The New York Times reported Wednesday:

In a lively argument, questions by the justices suggested a divide along ideological lines, as well as a possible split by gender on the court. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a conservative, appeared skeptical that Idaho's law, which bars doctors from providing abortions unless a woman's life is in danger or in specific nonviable pregnancies, superseded the federal law. The argument also raised a broader question about whether some of the conservative justices, particularly Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., may be prepared to embrace language of fetal personhood, that is, the notion that a fetus would have the same rights as a pregnant woman.

Also noting Barrett's apparent alignment with the three liberal women on the court, Law Dork's Chris Geidner predicted "it comes down to" Chief Justice John Roberts and fellow right-winger Brett Kavanaugh.

"Already, we see women miscarrying and giving birth to stillborn infants in restrooms and in their cars after hospitals have turned them away, and medical professionals put in impossible positions by extremist lawmakers," said MomsRising executive director and CEO Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner, citing Associated Pressreporting from last week.

"Of all the horrors SCOTUS unleashed with its appalling, dangerous, massively unpopular ruling overturning Roe v. Wade, the threat that pregnant people—most of whom are moms—will be denied emergency medical care is among the worst," she asserted. "An adverse ruling in this case will mean emergency rooms can deny urgently needed care to people experiencing serious pregnancy complications that can destroy their health, end their fertility, and take their lives."

Alexa Kolbi-Molinas, deputy director of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project, similarly stressed that under a decision that favors the Idaho GOP, "pregnant people will suffer severe, life-altering health consequences, and even death."

"We're already seeing the devastating impact of this case play out in Idaho, where medical evacuations to transport patients to other states for the care they need have dramatically spiked since the Supreme Court allowed state politicians to block emergency abortion care," she noted.

The has also been an exodus of healthcare providers. Pointing out that those who violate Idaho's ban face five years in prison, The Guardian reported Wednesday that "between 2022, when Roe was overturned, and 2023, about 50 OB-GYNs moved out of the state."

As Republican lawmakers in various states have ramped up attacks on reproductive freedom since Dobbs, states that still allow abortions have seen an influx of "healthcare refugees." A Planned Parenthood spokesperson confirmed in January that about 30% of its abortion patients in Nevada—which borders Idaho—are from other states.

"With several of Nevada's bordering states enforcing abortion bans, pushing many people seeking care to our state, we've seen firsthand the devastation that anti-abortion policies are already wreaking," Reproductive Freedom for All director of Nevada campaigns Denise Lopez said Tuesday. "The Supreme Court must not allow us to spiral further into this healthcare crisis."

If the high court rules in favor of Idaho's Republican lawmakers, she warned, "all states will be impacted, even in places like Nevada with more than 4 in 5 voters supporting reproductive freedom."

Destiny Lopez, acting co-CEO of the Guttmacher Institute, declared that "at its core, this Supreme Court decision will reflect who we are becoming as a society: Are we okay with requiring pregnant individuals who face severe complications to suffer life-threatening health consequences rather than granting them access to abortion? Are we okay with forcing doctors to choose between violating federal law by not providing emergency abortion care or violating state law if they do?"

"If the court does not uphold emergency abortion care protections, this ruling will have devastating consequences for pregnant people—particularly Black and Brown folks, immigrants, people with lower incomes, those without health insurance, and LGBTQ+ communities—while further emboldening extremists," she emphasized.

Arguments in the case have sparked multiple demonstrations, from a weekend rally in Boise, Idaho to a Wednesday gathering outside the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., where Women's March organized a die-in to highlight the potential consequences of the forthcoming ruling.

"It's a horrifying time to be someone who needs critical abortion care in America right now," said Women's March executive director Rachel O'Leary Carmona. "The GOP is chipping away at women's bodily autonomy and livelihoods one illegitimate court case at a time—from fast-tracking a case on the authorization of a medication that's been safely administered for decades last month, to now bringing the fate of emergency abortion care to a Supreme Court captured by their radical, anti-choice agenda."

"We know what these cases really are: They're part of a series of efforts by Christian nationalist politicians to do anything they can to control women's bodies and cut back women's decisions about their healthcare, their family planning, and their lives," she added.

Similar warnings about far-right Christian nationalist attacks on a range of rights have dominated political contests this cycle—including the race for the White House. In November, Democratic President Joe Biden, who supports access to abortion care, is set to face former Republican President Donald Trump, who brags about appointing three of the six justices who reversed Roe.

The case has renewed arguments for considering changes to the country's top court, which over the past few years has not only seen plummeting levels of public trust but also been rocked by repeated ethics scandals.

"Idaho's abortion ban is a direct consequence of the court's radical decision to overturn Roe v. Wade and allow partisan state legislatures to determine Americans' access to abortion care," said Stand Up America managing director of policy and political affairs Brett Edkins. "If the Supreme Court once again sides with anti-abortion extremists, it will be further proof that this court is radically out of touch with the American people and must be reformed."

#u.s. supreme court #abortion rights #maternal health #idaho #roe vs. wade

[mostlysignssomeportents]

At long last, a meaningful step to protect Americans' privacy

This Saturday (19 Aug), I'm appearing at the San Diego Union-Tribune Festival of Books. I'm on a 2:30PM panel called "Return From Retirement," followed by a signing:

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/festivalofbooks

Privacy raises some thorny, subtle and complex issues. It also raises some stupid-simple ones. The American surveillance industry's shell-game is founded on the deliberate confusion of the two, so that the most modest and sensible actions are posed as reductive, simplistic and unworkable.

Two pillars of the American surveillance industry are credit reporting bureaux and data brokers. Both are unbelievably sleazy, reckless and dangerous, and neither faces any real accountability, let alone regulation.

Remember Equifax, the company that doxed every adult in America and was given a mere wrist-slap, and now continues to assemble nonconsensual dossiers on every one of us, without any material oversight improvements?

https://memex.craphound.com/2019/07/20/equifax-settles-with-ftc-cfpb-states-and-consumer-class-actions-for-700m/

Equifax's competitors are no better. Experian doxed the nation again, in 2021:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/04/30/dox-the-world/#experian

It's hard to overstate how fucking scummy the credit reporting world is. Equifax invented the business in 1899, when, as the Retail Credit Company, it used private spies to track queers, political dissidents and "race mixers" so that banks and merchants could discriminate against them:

https://jacobin.com/2017/09/equifax-retail-credit-company-discrimination-loans

As awful as credit reporting is, the data broker industry makes it look like a paragon of virtue. If you want to target an ad to "Rural and Barely Making It" consumers, the brokers have you covered:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/04/13/public-interest-pharma/#axciom

More than 650,000 of these categories exist, allowing advertisers to target substance abusers, depressed teens, and people on the brink of bankruptcy:

https://themarkup.org/privacy/2023/06/08/from-heavy-purchasers-of-pregnancy-tests-to-the-depression-prone-we-found-650000-ways-advertisers-label-you

These companies follow you everywhere, including to abortion clinics, and sell the data to just about anyone:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/05/07/safegraph-spies-and-lies/#theres-no-i-in-uterus

There are zillions of these data brokers, operating in an unregulated wild west industry. Many of them have been rolled up into tech giants (Oracle owns more than 80 brokers), while others merely do business with ad-tech giants like Google and Meta, who are some of their best customers.

As bad as these two sectors are, they're even worse in combination – the harms data brokers (sloppy, invasive) inflict on us when they supply credit bureaux (consequential, secretive, intransigent) are far worse than the sum of the harms of each.

And now for some good news. The Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, under the leadership of Rohit Chopra, has declared war on this alliance:

https://www.techdirt.com/2023/08/16/cfpb-looks-to-restrict-the-sleazy-link-between-credit-reporting-agencies-and-data-brokers/

They've proposed new rules limiting the trade between brokers and bureaux, under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, putting strict restrictions on the transfer of information between the two:

https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/15/tech/privacy-rules-data-brokers/index.html

As Karl Bode writes for Techdirt, this is long overdue and meaningful. Remember all the handwringing and chest-thumping about Tiktok stealing Americans' data to the Chinese military? China doesn't need Tiktok to get that data – it can buy it from data-brokers. For peanuts.

The CFPB action is part of a muscular style of governance that is characteristic of the best Biden appointees, who are some of the most principled and competent in living memory. These regulators have scoured the legislation that gives them the power to act on behalf of the American people and discovered an arsenal of action they can take:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/10/18/administrative-competence/#i-know-stuff

Alas, not all the Biden appointees have the will or the skill to pull this trick off. The corporate Dems' darlings are mired in #LearnedHelplessness, convinced that they can't – or shouldn't – use their prodigious powers to step in to curb corporate power:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/01/10/the-courage-to-govern/#whos-in-charge

And it's true that privacy regulation faces stiff headwinds. Surveillance is a public-private partnership from hell. Cops and spies love to raid the surveillance industries' dossiers, treating them as an off-the-books, warrantless source of unconstitutional personal data on their targets:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/02/16/ring-ring-lapd-calling/#ring

These powerful state actors reliably intervene to hamstring attempts at privacy law, defending the massive profits raked in by data brokers and credit bureaux. These profits, meanwhile, can be mobilized as lobbying dollars that work lawmakers and regulators from the private sector side. Caught in the squeeze between powerful government actors (the true "Deep State") and a cartel of filthy rich private spies, lawmakers and regulators are frozen in place.

Or, at least, they were. The CFPB's discovery that it had the power all along to curb commercial surveillance follows on from the FTC's similar realization last summer:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/08/12/regulatory-uncapture/#conscious-uncoupling

I don't want to pretend that all privacy questions can be resolved with simple, bright-line rules. It's not clear who "owns" many classes of private data – does your mother own the fact that she gave birth to you, or do you? What if you disagree about such a disclosure – say, if you want to identify your mother as an abusive parent and she objects?

But there are so many stupid-simple privacy questions. Credit bureaux and data-brokers don't inhabit any kind of grey area. They simply should not exist. Getting rid of them is a project of years, but it starts with hacking away at their sources of profits, stripping them of defenses so we can finally annihilate them.

I'm kickstarting the audiobook for "The Internet Con: How To Seize the Means of Computation," a Big Tech disassembly manual to disenshittify the web and make a new, good internet to succeed the old, good internet. It's a DRM-free book, which means Audible won't carry it, so this crowdfunder is essential. Back now to get the audio, Verso hardcover and ebook:

http://seizethemeansofcomputation.org

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/08/16/the-second-best-time-is-now/#the-point-of-a-system-is-what-it-does

Image: Cryteria (modified) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HAL9000.svg

CC BY 3.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en

#pluralistic #privacy #data brokers #cfpb #consumer finance protection bureau #regulation #regulatory nihilism #regulatory capture #trustbusting #monopoly #antitrust #private public partnerships from hell #deep state #photocopier kickers #rohit chopra #learned helplessness #equifax #credit reporting #credit reporting bureaux #experian

[robertreich]

The GOP’s Attack on LGBTQ Americans, Revealed 

Republicans don’t seem to care that Ronald Reagan once starred in a film that featured a prominent drag scene or that Rudy Giuliani did a skit in drag with Donald Trump.

Suddenly, they’re trying to ban or restrict drag performances in at least 15 states, with bills so broadly worded that advocates warn they could be used not only to prosecute drag performers, but also transgender people who dare to simply exist in public.

These bans are part of a cynical campaign to demonize the LGBTQ+ community. MAGA politicians are stoking fear over imaginary dangers to distract from how their policies only help themselves and their wealthy donors.

In the first half of 2023 alone, Republicans across the nation introduced a record number of bills to strip away freedoms and civil rights from LGBTQ+ Americans, largely targeting transgender and gender-nonconforming people.

By banning gender affirming care for minors, GOP lawmakers are effectively practicing medicine without a license — overruling the guidance of doctors, the American Medical Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics. And they’re lying about what gender affirming care even is.

Genital surgery, for instance, is rarely, if ever, done under the age of 18. It’s not even all that common for adults. Politicians like Ron DeSantis are lying about it to scare people.

And the Republican presidential frontrunner has made it clear that trans people have no place in his vision of America.

MAGA lawmakers and pundits falsely claim trans people and drag performers are a danger to children and the public at large, when there is no evidence at all to support that. None. Trans people are in fact four times more likely to be the victims of violent crime.

These scare tactics are dangerous. Recent analysis found a 70% increase in hate crimes against LGBTQ+ Americans between 2020 and 2021, as the surge of these bills began. And that’s only counting hate crimes that get reported. 2020 and 2021 each set a new record for the number of trans people murdered in America.

The cruelest irony is that these Republican bills pretending to protect children actually put some of the most vulnerable children at greater risk. LGBTQ+ kids are more than four times as likely to attempt suicide, especially transgender children. Gender-affirming care reduces that risk. That is why it is life-saving.

Don’t Say Gay laws strip away potentially life-saving support. A teacher discussing sexual orientation and gender identity won’t turn a straight kid gay. But it will make an LGBTQ+ student 23% less likely to attempt suicide.

The tragic truth is that Don’t Say Gay Laws and health care bans will cause more young lives to be needlessly lost.

If Republicans really cared about protecting kids, they’d focus on gun violence, now the leading cause of death for American children. If they were really worried about children undergoing life-altering medical procedures, they wouldn’t pass abortion bans that force teens to give birth or risk back-alley procedures.

What the GOP’s vendetta against the LGBTQ+ community really is, is a classic authoritarian tactic to vilify already marginalized people. They’re trying to stoke so much paranoia and hatred that we don’t notice how they are consolidating power and wealth into the hands of a ruling few.

We need to see this attack on LGBTQ+ Americans for what it is: a threat to all of our human rights.

#youtube #video #videos #pride #LGBTQ+ #Politics #Republicans #Government #equality #Trans Rights

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

Joe Biden will sign legislation protecting access to abortion care into law if Democrats win control of Congress in midterm elections this fall.

In remarks to a Democratic National Committee event on 18 October, the President announced plans to sign a bill to codify Roe v. Wade protections on the 50th anniversary of the US Supreme Court decision – what he intends to be his first act of 2023.

In June, the nation’s high court struck down precedents established by Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey that affirmed the constitutional right to abortion care.

Following the latest ruling, more than a dozen states have outlawed most abortions or severely restricted access to care, leading to the closures of dozens of clinics. Patients and providers across the US have warned of devastating consequences to losing access to legal abortion, while Democratic officials have made abortion rights central to their midterm campaigns as Republicans mull national abortion restrictions.

“If Republicans get their way with a national ban, it won’t matter where you live in America,” Mr. Biden said on Tuesday. “The only sure way to stop these extremist laws that have put in jeopardy women’s health and rights is for Congress to pass a law.”

Democrats would need to pick up several seats in the currently evenly split US Senate for abortion protections to prevail.

Mr. Biden also said he will veto any anti-abortion legislation passed by a Republican-controlled Congress.

The Democratic-led House of Representatives passed the Women’s Health Protection Act earlier this year, though Senate Republicans have repeatedly obstructed its introduction in that chamber. That bill would codify the right to abortion care as affirmed by Roe v. Wade.

House Democrats were only joined by three Republicans to pass the Ensuring Access to Abortion Act, which would protect the right of abortion patients who live in states that have outlawed or severely restricted care to travel to other states without risking prosecution or legal action in their home states.

The bill also would protect providers and others who help patients travelling out of state for their care.

Legislation would also shield interstate shipments of US Food and Drug Administration-approved drugs used for medication abortion, the most common form of abortion care, accounting for more than half of all abortions in the US.

In a briefing with reporters on Monday, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre called Republican-led abortion restrictions “disturbing” and “very dangerous.”

“It’s backwards, again, it’s dangerous and it’s severe, in stark contrast to the President and the commitment that he has to leave these decisions between a woman and her doctor,” she said.

This fall, voters in several states will determine whether their state constitutions include explicit protections for abortion care, while elections for control of state legislatures, governors’ offices and secretaries of state will also determine the fates of abortion access across the US.

In his remarks on Tuesday, President Biden pointed to Kansas voters shooting down a recent anti-abortion ballot measure in that state, signalling the electoral consequences of the Supreme Court’s decision in midterm elections.

“One of the most extraordinary parts of [the Dobbs decision] was when the majority wrote, ‘women are not without electoral or political power.’ Let me tell you something – the Court and extreme Republicans who have spent decades trying to overturn Roe are about to find out,” he said.

#us politics #news #the independent #2022 #president joe biden #biden administration #Democrats #codify roe #roe v. wade #abortions #reproductive rights #reproductive health #abortion is a right #planned parenthood v. casey #Women’s Health Protection Act #Ensuring Access to Abortion Act #food and drug administration #Karine Jean-Pierre #us supreme court #scotus #2022 elections #2022 midterms

[clown-owo]

i keep seeing posts about how "criminalizing abortion won't actually stop abortions, it just makes them unsafe. the only way to reduce abortions is with comprehensive sex education and access to contraceptives-" they don't care they don't care they don't care.

the people who want to criminalize abortions don't care. you likely won't convince them with that kind of argument because they aren't actually interested in reducing abortions they are interested in punishing the people who get abortions. in their eyes unsafe abortions is just another punishment for the abortion. because they consider a fetus to be alive, saying that is like arguing that "you shouldn't ban murder because it doesn't actually stop murder".

This argument assumes you have the same core beliefs about when life begins. It is flawed from the outset. you need to argue assuming or disagreeing with their core beliefs on when life begins to even have a chance of convincing them.

for instance, even if a fetus is considered a whole person with rights, no one is entitled to use anyone else's body to survive. in the US, you legally cannot take the organs of a dead person without their consent even if it would save someone else's life, let alone a living person. no one can force you to donate blood. you should not be forced to give up your body for the life of another, in any circumstance. especially not when it puts your own in danger.

and also! in that same vein, "you want to ban abortions despite evidence showing it doesn't work but claim regulating guns doesn't work when the evidence supports it" is not the gotcha you think it is. Because those kinds of people believe that all abortions are bad, but guns can be used for good. they want to regulate abortions because they believe there is no or very few excuses for one, and they don't want to regulate guns because they don't want to risk restricting guns (as they love to bring up the 2nd amendment) for otherwise good people who wouldn't use them to kill.

#roe v wade #abortions #og post

[burningtheroots]

Hey girl. I’m a 21 year old cis woman, so roughly the same age as you. This could be a long one so I apologize in advance. I hope this doesn’t come across as patronizing or rude, I come from a place of kindness. I, like you, have chosen to be a feminist and uplift women and women’s voices and lives. But it seems you’ve chosen a path that differs from my own, and I don’t think you realize how you, yourself, are upholding the patriarchy. It’s true that gender identity is a social construct, and modern day gender identities rely on the patriarchy to exist. But they are also deeply rooted in colonialism. Gender and sex have been different for a very very long time, and many cultures before colonization embraced many different sex and gender identities free from modern day patriarchal concepts. What you’ve been told about sex and gender are rooted in patriarchal understandings of sex. The modern day understanding of sex NEEDS the patriarchy, to exist. Sex is a spectrum, the two ends being male and female. The patriarchy wants just male and female, so one can be superior to the other based on ancient (and white) societal concepts. With a wider range of sex identities, less men exist, and it becomes harder to be superior. I encourage you to take a look at how other cultures viewed women, and people of other genders, before colonization. It wasn’t all “women are lesser to men,” that’s just what most people learn because that’s what upholds the patriarchy. As a woman, I understand your fear of men invading our spaces to hurt us. But trans women are not going to do that, the process of transitioning is long and complicated and I encourage you to learn more about it. By putting down transgender people you are ultimately siding with the very men who do want to hurt you, and they want to hurt transgender people too. The people restricting abortion rights, divorce rights, all womens rights, are the same people restricting trans rights. Have you never stopped to think why that is? It’s because they go against the patriarchy, the societal norm. You and I will never be free while we put down other minority groups. We must focus on the true goal of eliminating the patriarchy and this war against trans people is a distraction. I promise you, if a man wanted to invade the spaces of women, they would not go through years of hormone replacement, put on women’s clothing, grow out their hair, and act/talk feminine to do so. You and I both know they just have to walk in. I implore you, talk to some trans people there are many on this platform. Interact with biologists to learn about human sex and gender and how they work, both are so interesting and complex it’s a real shame we learn none of it. I hope one day things get better for both of us.

I respect your effort, but you underestimate the amount of research I‘ve done and experience I‘ve gained. I‘m familiar with transgenderism and trans rights activism as I used to be part of the movement.

Gender critical feminists don‘t side with (conservative) men. Whilst it might superficially seem that way (critical of trans ideology), these men want to stick to traditional gender roles & stereotypes whereas we want to abolish it altogether.

Sex is not a spectrum. Sex is dichotomous. You‘re either biologically male or female. Intersex people are often used as "evidence" for the claim that sex isn‘t binary, but what your community likes to leave out is that intersex people are still either male or female (intersex male & intersex female). Disorders of sexual development and sexual dimorphism are not the same as transgenderism, which is entirely based on gender (a patriarchal construct).

There are already examples of transitioned men who use their gender identity to enter women‘s spaces, including prisons, and men who transition during their prison sentences.

Regardless, self-ID laws are dangerous and whether a man is truly dysphoric or not doesn’t justify putting women at risk, especially since 'transwomen' are statistically just as prone to male pattern violence as men who aren‘t trans.

Dysphoria is a psychological condition and should be treated accordingly. That doesn’t mean anyone has to stick to traditional gender roles — just be yourself and do what you want, wear dresses, use makeup etc. — or don’t — but don’t call yourself a woman when you‘re male & don‘t invade women‘s spaces when you‘re male.

#radfem #radblr #radical feminism #feminism #radfems do touch #radfems do interact #women deserve better #radfems please touch #womens rights #sex based rights #transgender #terfblr

[liskantope]

So, Herschel Walker will not wind up a Georgia Senator, and the 2022 midterms are finally complete. That was dangerously close, though -- Walker has been hopefully one of the last of these ridiculously (both intellectually and morally) unqualified Republican candidates from a trend that became fully established with the rise of Trump but arguably began 14 years ago with Sarah Palin.

I've mostly held to a posture of declaring in such contests that it's not about policy or Republican versus Democrat, it's about being fundamentally qualified versus otherwise, and so it's outrageous that these contests even come close. This is pretty much in line with what I constantly hear from other left-leaning people. And yet...

Lately I've been coming to see a different perspective on this: many voters are just really pragmatic about trying to get policies they like. And I'm not entirely sure that this is wrong, or that I wouldn't be this way myself. I've just always had the benefit of preferring the policies of the major American political party that feels no real temptation to run candidates of that fundamentally unacceptable kind. As long as the parties stay more or less in their current states, only the Republican party has enough discomfort, resentment, and/or disdain for what we might call Established Expertise to feel any attraction whatsoever to candidates who thumb their noses at it. (The closest the Democrats have come to this in my lifetime may have been Marianne Williamson for president in 2020, and she didn't win the candidacy by a long shot.)

For simplicity, let's just narrow this down to one big issue that people on both sides feel very strongly about: abortion. If you're a very pro-choice Democrat who sees restrictive abortion laws as a huge middle finger to women, as extremely detrimental to the lives of millions of women and to the development of underprivileged communities, then the practical effects of electing someone who will defend the right to choose, regardless of that candidate's personality or basic qualifications for office, might outweigh most everything else. At least, I think most voters of this description, if they're really looking at themselves honestly, would admit that they put effect on policy over every other consideration here, even if it means holding their nose while they vote. Well then, doesn't it make sense, by the same token, that an ardently pro-life Republican, who sincerely believes that millions of babies are being murdered as long as abortion is legal (or who is just dead set against women having autonomy, according to a more cynical and less theory-of-mind-ful liberal) might prioritize that goal over electing someone who seems decently earnest and fundamentally qualified? Millions of human beings are going to be murdered / have their bodily autonomy taken away, depending on our point of view: surely the priority is to put a person in power who we can trust to prevent that! (And add to this a list of other issues that many of us are passionate about, each of whose sides tend to line up and fall under the preferences of one of our two main political tribes.)

I remember in my early years on Tumblr, during the rise of Trump, that Barry Deutsch (haven't heard much from him lately, I hope he's doing all right?) wrote a post that kind of shocked me at the time, about how he would put policy over character even in the case of a candidate who was obviously a rapist. I wanted to argue back and tried, but couldn't entirely deny deep down inside that I knew he was being quite rational, reasonable, and honest in the point he was making (just tried to find this exchange in my archive but am not up for going on a long hunt for it, hopefully my memory serves correctly).

[EDIT: wouldncha know it, a few days later I just ran across it while looking through my archives for something else from around the same period. Here is Barry's post with my response. I'm sort of bemused looking back at this, particularly at my part of it and how sort-of-right but sort-of-wrong I was.]

Just the other day, one of my colleagues mentioned that he couldn't imagine what personally disqualifying characteristics a Democrat running on left-wing positions could possibly have that would make him unwilling to vote for them in an election, because what they're running on is so vitally important. He said that even if they were a known murderer, he would kind of have to vote for them or at least consider it, maybe not because voting for a murderer might degrade his own character, so it would be a real dilemma. This conversation made a real impression on me (not that my thoughts had never before skirted to that kind of dilemma and how I or typical left-wing people would handle it) and is part of is compelling me to post this. And the most interesting thing is, this same colleague, on the subject of Herschel Walker, pretty much expressed the usual outrage over the fact that such a fundamentally unqualified candidate was only narrowly losing, not losing 20-80, parties and policy positions be damned.

If we're going to criticize the American Right for running and voting for clowns and obvious criminals and otherwise horrible and completely unqualified people, then we have to seriously ask ourselves whether we'd support similarly terrible candidates if we trusted them to support the positions we find extremely important. Because if so, it's just a little too easy a rhetorical move to point at and mock the other side for this.

One caveat: the main reason, I think, why most left-leaning people don't really consider my above point, is that it's a pure and very unlikely hypothetical that doesn't easily occur to us: the Left, compared to the Right, has enough respect for Established Expertise and general seriousness that the Democratic party in its current state would never dream of putting up the kind of ridiculous candidate that the Republicans have been trying out. As long as that continues to be the case, we don't have to actually worry about the dilemma my colleague brought up.

Another caveat: leaving aside general clownishness, incompetence, unseriousness, and outwardly bad character, if a candidate blatantly disdains the democratic process which is part of the self-correcting nature of our political system (which the Right is certainly overall far more guilty of today than the Left) by deciding that elections are rigged and shouldn't be trusted if they don't come out in their favor, then since this is sort of a huge meta-issue and in my opinion really does need to come before even most very important policy issues. In the (currently but perhaps not always) unlikely hypothetical situation where the shoe is on the other foot and it's someone with policies I strongly favor acting this way, I'd like to think I know how I would reluctantly feel compelled to respond.

#midterms #herschel walker #our last president #marianne williamson #abortion

[nottskyler]

I couldn’t sleep last night and part of the time I was upset about the Church’s press release related to the overturning of Roe v Wade and the abortion law that took effect in Utah (which has very secret combination vibes because the average person did not think it would be overturned and this law passed without my hearing about it two years before it took effect). I know it’s a very passé topic, but I’m going to try to put my feelings into coherent words.

1) President Nelson is a doctor and should know better than to speak on a field that is not his expertise. OBGYNs and people who have worked in fertility know very well that having a fertilized egg is not what makes a baby. Yes, it is an important ingredient, but number of fertilized eggs doesn’t not equal how many babies you get. It’s not when life starts or people with uteruses would have no hope of being exalted because of how many fertilized eggs our bodies reject. Saying fertilization is when life begins is an insult to everyone with a uterus who struggles with fertility. (And a flat out lie with our current medical knowledge)

2) Life begins at fertilization is not the official Church stance and speaking during a press release as the head of the Church is attempting to change doctrine without going through the proper process (unanimous vote by counsel of prophet and apostles which should include their wives). Abortion is banned because it is “like unto” murder, not because it actually is. Saying life starts at fertilization changes the crime of abortion to be more akin to murder.

3) Regardless of all of the above, the Church is supposed to support religious freedom. We live in an era where a lot of beliefs are not part of an organized religion, but that doesn’t mean they don’t deserve to have the same rights as people belonging to an organized religion. Abortion is considered vital for women to be equal in society by the majority of Americans. The Church should not be rejoicing in restricting the agency of a large group to live according to their beliefs. It goes against religious freedom, but of course the institution of the Church only supports “religious freedom” which is actually forcing others to live according to my beliefs even if they believe differently.

4) One of the main reasons the Church is not terrible for expecting its members to not have abortions is because of the social safety net that the Church provides. If you can’t afford a doctor, your ward leadership will step in to pay for it and even drive you. If you can’t afford housing, the Church will help you get housing and gainful employment to pay for it. Ward members will help and give free childcare. Unless the Church plans on using its $100 billion to make sure no one lives in poverty, it has no room to expect people outside the Church to live its beliefs (if you ignore the whole religious freedom stuff we supposedly support).

5) Everyone takes for granted how dangerous and risky pregnancy and childbirth are. Yes, we all are because someone took that risk, but people should be allowed to opt out of that risk because medical knowledge has advanced to allow that. Pregnancy is rough. I know media loves cryptic pregnancy stories, but that is the exception instead of the rule. HG is the absolute worst and no one should be forced to go through 9 months of that. And no one should risk their life giving birth if they don’t want to, especially people who already have children to take care of (who also likely know the risks better than before having their first kid as they’ve already gone through it).

6) The whole multiply and replenish the earth stuff works a lot better by persuasion than by force and the scriptures literally say that forcing people to keep commandments means amen to your priesthood (sorry President Nelson, your power diminished by supporting someone forcing people to do something). Living wage, housing first homeless programs, accessible childcare and healthcare, better air quality and communities (ie not car dependent), etc will do so much more to convince people to keep surprise pregnancies than making it illegal to get an abortion. I think a lot of people would have more children if the world was better, but nobody wants to listen to that.

So yeah, the Church needs to do a lot of repenting, including President Nelson. It’s wrong to deny abortions because you think pregnancy is as easy as getting fat and ejaculating and are privileged enough to not see the extent of poverty and how it ruins families. Investing in artificial wombs will do more for birth rates than any abortion ban (as it won’t change the birth rate whereas abortion bans will cause women to opt to be sterilized rather than deal with an unwanted pregnancy). And by their fruits you shall know them, letting young girls die from pregnancy and childbirth is a pretty rotten fruit.

#queerstake #abortion

[canichangemyblogname]

When someone tells you who they are, believe them. None of this, “They wouldn’t actually do it” or “they don’t really believe that.” When they reveal themselves to you, believe that’s who they are. When they tell you what they believe and what they want, believe them.

When House conservatives laid out their legislative priorities should they prevail in the midterms, they declared that they will devote their time to “protect[ing] the lives of unborn children.” 

They WILL push for a national abortion ban. They WILL push for lower corporate taxes. They WILL push for the deregulation of corporate entities. They WILL push for gun safety deregulation. They WILL push for national curriculum changes which will mimic Florida’s “Don’t say gay” bill. They WILL push for an end to bodily-autonomy related medical care.

“But the Democrats are just as bad! But the Democrats are ineffective! But the Democrats are spineless and they aren’t doing anything to combat this!”

Cool. Thanks for your “both sides are just as bad” lukewarm take.

I hate how pointing out how the Republican Party and their platform of Christian Nationalism is dangerous is always met with, “Yah, well, I don’t like the Dems, either! They’re bad too!” Great. Join the club. But what are you doing about it? Are you actively putting forth and canvassing for new people who will improve people’s material reality?

Or are you using this as a socially acceptable excuse for your apoliticality and apathy?

Look, in the end I don’t have the luxury to not vote. I don’t have the luxury to take the chance. I don’t have the luxury to assume the Republicans “won’t actually” move to restrict bodily autonomy or deport my best friend or raise my taxes (again) or vote to allow corporations to dump in the rivers and lakes I drink from or vote to allow companies to pollute the air I breathe. I don’t have the luxury to sit and not vote because I don’t like either party; because both parties are too right-of-center for me. I don’t have the luxury to allow who sits in office, representing me and voting on laws, to be decided by your average straight, cis white person.

(Let’s not forget that 55% of white women voted for Trump. And that white women have consistently voted Republican since the 1950s. No, that demographic as a whole does not care about access to reproductive healthcare or reproductive justice. Doesn’t matter if they call themselves a feminist or not.)

I am going to vote. And I am voting with the environmental rights and reproductive rights and bodily autonomy rights of my black and brown sisters and trans siblings in mind.

And after voting, I am (of course) continuing my fight to pass legislation and put forth candidates to improve people’s material reality. I will continue the work I’m doing.

I know that elections are not the end-all of political action. I know the need for direct action. But I also know elections are important. And that who is in office affects our direct action.

#Elections #US politics #republicans #conservatism #voting

[mariacallous]

State and local governments long have been considered “laboratories of democracy” that spawn valuable innovation. But recently states have taken this a step farther entering a risky new phase that pits blue states against red ones and blue cities against red states, and threatens democracy as a whole. As opposed to tolerating policy experimentation by different jurisdictions, some leaders are seeking to impose their own policy views on other places. Taken to an extreme, this behavior likely would intensify conflict and escalate policy nullification on a broad scale.

Take, for instance, the recent intensification of arguments over immigration. Governors Ron DeSantis of Florida and Greg Abbott of Texas have bussed unwanted arrivals from the southern border to New York City, Washington, DC, and Martha’s Vineyard as a way to express their discontent with national policy. These leaders are upset over so-called “sanctuary cities” that are pro-immigrant and seeking to attract media attention to their cause. While successful at generating press coverage, this confrontational stance puts innocent people in the middle of policy disputes and disrupts social service delivery in the targeted states.

Another area is abortion policy where the Supreme Court reversal of Roe v. Wade turned that issue back to the states and transformed the politics of that subject. A number of states used that decision not only to outlaw abortion but to criminalize actions that provided help for those wanting abortions. The stark differences in how state legislatures have responded to the Roe aftermath suggests federalism is moving in a destructive direction and putting states on a collision path with one another.

Similar issues have popped in regard to marijuana legalization. For a number of years, that area has pitted states wanting to relax prohibitions and spawn new businesses against existing laws preventing interstate commerce involving illegal drugs or using the national banking system to transfer money. The resulting jurisdictional conflicts have strained federalism and made it difficult for businesses to know whose laws they should obey.

And in the gun area, California recently enacted a law allowing people to sue those who make or distribute assault weapons. Modeled after Texas legislation that enabled lawsuits against those who aid women seeking abortions, the legislation demonstrates how states are turning on one another and restricting personal activity on a much broader scale than before. It no longer is enough for states and localities to take decisive policy stances, but rather they are aiming their enforcement against people living elsewhere who have different points of view.

Even within individual states, there are risks for governance and democracy. Increasingly, there is preemption between red states and blue cities whereby Republican-controlled legislatures are putting major restrictions on the ability of Democratically-controlled cities to spend money, set policy, and address social issues. These within-state conflicts are eroding the capacity of cities to innovate and undertake useful policy experiments. By restricting local prerogatives, state legislatures are upsetting the balance of power within their boundaries and relegating cities to purely administrative functions.

From these and other actions, it appears federalism is entering an intolerant terrain that threatens democracy itself. There is a power reshuffling that likely will have profound ramifications for questions of who decides and what they decide on many topics. Large-scale political and institutional shifts on abortion policy, immigration enforcement, gun safety, and marijuana legalization are rippling through many jurisdictions and eroding the traditional prerogatives of state and local government.

In the past, trend-setting localities have piloted projects that experimented with new ideas and became models for the country as a whole. As part of our system of local rule, different jurisdictions had freedom to test policies such as welfare work requirements, school choice, and cannabis legalization, and that was considered a strength of American governance.

Yet in recent years, federalism has entered a new phase. In my Brookings Institution Press book, Power Politics: Trump and the Assault on American Democracy, I argue the extreme polarization and radicalization that afflicts contemporary politics has recast federalism in an entirely different light. States are innovating in more polarized and extreme directions, and criminalizing behavior that is perfectly lawful in other places.

These stakes are especially high given the fact that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear an elections case with the potential to alter how presidential elections operate. In a North Carolina lawsuit involving the primacy of state legislatures versus state courts in handling redistricting disputes, justices could make a decision that elevates the role of state legislatures in choosing Electoral College electors and scale back the ability of state courts to adjudicate future election disputes. The result could be legislatures certifying elector slates for a candidate who has not gained the popular vote majority in that state. Such a move would generate considerable chaos in federal elections and usher in undemocratic practices that would weaken the popular vote and limit the ability of voters to hold leaders accountable.

If these and other policy moves spread, what traditionally have been considered strengths of American democracy, i.e., the ability of states and localities to experiment, chart their own policy paths, and represent the views of people within their own jurisdictions, could shift in destructive directions. Rather than protecting democracy through tolerant and variated approaches, the differential responses of states and localities could intensify regional conflict and weaken the glue that holds the country together. Our current political system may not survive the high level of conflict which results when states nullify laws from other jurisdictions and criminalize behavior that is legal elsewhere.

[calpalirwin]

I’m sure in the deep abyss that is my blog I’ve mentioned this before, but in light of recent, deeply troubling news, and a lack of being able to announce this on other social media platforms I have out of respect to my husband’s privacy (read: his family follows me) I feel that this a story time worth retelling. So here we go.

10 years ago, I had an abortion.

10 years ago I got to make that choice for myself. In a situation where my partner and I did everything “right” in terms of practicing safe sex and being in a safe and consensual relationship, I STILL chose to have an abortion for an unplanned/unwanted pregnancy.

We didn’t do it because we were baby hater or didn’t want children. Because, spoiler alert, 10 years later, we are happily married and very happily raising our nearly 7 month old baby who we decided to have at a time in our lives when we were emotionally, physically, mentally, and relatively financially ready to have.

Choosing to have an abortion was not easy. I still mourn that loss. My husband still mourns that loss. But when I think about how hard we’ve struggled to make it where we are today and how much more of a struggle it would have been had we decided to go through with having a child then, I’d gladly endure that verbal abuse from strangers walking into that Planned Parenthood a million times over.

And to think that our nation has just made that choice nearly impossible for a lot of child-bearing persons to make? Disgusted isn’t a strong enough word.

Body autonomy is a fundamental human right. Striping away that right will not stop abortions from happening and when “forced pregnancy” is “committed as part of a widespread or systemic attack directed against any civilian population with knowledge of the attack” it is a LITERAL crime against humanity. Also the implications of criminalizing abortion/forcing pregnancies to happen in a nation with highest rate of maternal mortality in developed nations, a broken and corrupt foster care system, incredibly ridiculous costs and restrictions for adoption, virtually zero assistance for new parents, and not to mention the continuing of allowing our already alive and breathing child(ren) to be shot for simply going to school, is putting this nation dangerously close to committing an act of genocide (again…)

“BuT tHe CoNsTiTuTiOn!”

Yes, I understand the nuances that led to this decision. I also know that the US Constitution is a living document. As it it can be amended. So FUCKIN’ AMEND IT. WRITE IT IN OUR GOD DAMN CONSTITUTION THAT ALL PERSONS HAVE CERTAIN HUMANITARIAN RIGHTS SUCH AS BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO PROTECTION AGAINST *insert every item listed as an act that is considered a crime against humanity as outline by the United Nations*

We had an amendment that banned alcohol for fuck’s sake… but we can’t get basic fundamental human rights in there? Fuck me…

#roe v wade #if you dont think theyll come for you next you havent been paying attention #if i ever give up on teaching im going to law school

[ms-cellanies]

I posted 22,667 times in 2022

911 posts created (4%)

21,756 posts reblogged (96%)

Blogs I reblogged the most:

@russalex

@cheekybug2

@ladytuarach

@angreav

I tagged 252 of my posts in 2022

#donald trump - 19 posts

#us news - 18 posts

#florida - 16 posts

#us politics - 12 posts

#environment - 9 posts

#politics - 9 posts

#world news - 8 posts

#abortion - 7 posts

#ron desantis - 7 posts

#republicans - 7 posts

Longest Tag: 82 characters

#limbaugh was more disgusting than a huge pile of dog barf or a truckload of manure

My Top Posts in 2022:

#5

182 notes - Posted October 18, 2022

#4

ALITO, GORSUCH, KAVANAUGH & CONEY BARRETT MUST BE REMOVED FROM THE SUPREME COURT.  They owe their positions to The Federalist Society but they are supposed to uphold the U.S. Constitution.

215 notes - Posted November 11, 2022

#3

I stumbled upon this & thought it was quite interesting.  There were stronger restrictions on guns in the “Old West” than the world we’re living in now.  The article even mentions that the understanding of the 2nd Amendment was nothing like what we’ve been dealing with since Scalia & the other RepubliKKKans on the Supreme Court made up their own interpretation.

221 notes - Posted May 26, 2022

#2

Johnson’s comments are the most batshit crazy yet.  Could he be suffering from brain damage?  Seriously just read this statement he made on Sept. 11th:

“ On Sunday Johnson suggested to Levin that liberals, Democrats, and anyone on “the left” as he put it, do not have an inherent right to participate in American life on an equal footing as Republicans.”

RON JOHNSON MUST BE DEFEATED & NEVER HOLD GOVERNMENT OFFICE EVER AGAIN.

236 notes - Posted September 13, 2022

My #1 post of 2022

THIS IS A MUST READ.  

RUTH BEN-GHIAT IS AN EXPERT ON AUTHORITARIANISM.  THAT IS WHAT AMERICA IS FACING, WITH OR WITHOUT TRUMP.  RON DESANTIS IS ALREADY PREPARING TO REPLACE TRUMP & OVERTHROW AMERICA’S DEMOCRACY.  

PLEASE READ THIS ARTICLE & REBLOG IT.  OUR LIVES DEPEND UPON US BEING AWARE OF THE IMPENDING DANGER TO OUR COUNTRY.

327 notes - Posted June 18, 2022

Get your Tumblr 2022 Year in Review →

#tumblr2022 #year in review #my 2022 tumblr year in review #your tumblr year in review

[mariekavanagh]

In 2012, Savita Halappanavar died in Ireland of sepsis after the country's laws refused her a life-saving evacuation of her uterus following the partial miscarriage of an unviable pregnancy.

This week, American citizen Andrea Prudente suffered a similar situation in Malta - another country who's restricted laws prohibited her medical treatment for the same condition, therefore leaving her at the very real risk of the same fate as Savita and having to be airlifted to Spain for treatment. Her husband told the media that his wife reached a point where she considered asking him to punch her as hard in the stomach as he could. NO ONE deserves to reach a point of such desperation that they wish harm on themselves.

The thought that after today, she could have been in the exact same situation at home as she has been in Malta, is extremely saddening.

Lack of reproductive healthcare puts women's lives at risk.

Lack of reproductive healthcare results in the suffering of women with planned pregnancies as much as unplanned.

Lack of reproductive healthcare drives desperate people to backstreet butchers who will capitalise on their situations and put them in danger.

Lack of reproductive healthcare results in an increase of female mortality.

Lack of reproductive healthcare results in an increase of infanticide.

You can never ban abortion - only safe abortion.

[blackvotersmatterfund]

ICYMI: Black Voters Matter: SCOTUS Decision To Overturn Roe V. Wade Puts Black Lives At Risk

In today’s decision to overturn Roe v Wade, a dangerous precedent has been set that takes away a fundamental right for the first time in the history of the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS).  The control of our bodies, and Black bodies in particular, has always been a controversial and public matter. However, themajority of Americans believe in an individual’s right to choose. Why is the highest court in the land working against its own precedent and the will of the people?

Nearly 50 years have gone by since the passage of Roe, which gave childbearing people the fundamental right to choose whether to have abortions without excessive government restrictions. But SCOTUS has decided to roll back its protection of the people, by dismissing this hard fought and won decision from our own court system and included a process for debate.

Charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law, the Court is expected to function as the guardian and interpreter of the Constitution – and it has failed. In a time that should see the evolution and expansion of human rights and equal protection under the law, the Court is increasingly politicized. Indeed, the Court has become a weaponized tool of the conservative right that is no longer operating in the best interests of the majority. 

And we are clear that this weaponized Court will not stop with reproductive rights. As hinted in Justice Clarence Thomas’ concurring decision, it will move towards dismantling other unenumerated protected rights such as access to contraception, marriage and LGBTQIA matters. Further, based on the logic used by SCOTUS in this case, we believe that precedent which ended segregation (Brown vs. Topeka Board of Education) is also on the chopping block.  

With the end of Roe, and greater control in the hands of states, southern states in particular are likely to see an increase in abortion bans that will put the health of millions, and Black women in particular, at even higher risk. Just look at Louisiana Senator Bill Cassidy’s dismissive comments from earlier this year about the maternal mortality rate of Black women and his blatant lack of respect for the health and well-being of Black bodies. 

 Our lives are at stake. Black lives are at stake and we are not going to let a Court that still doesn’t have a Black woman representative decide what rights we do and do not have. We know the fullness of our humanity must be protected and respected – at all times. While this decision is shameful, demeaning and dangerously violent, if we are forced to organize to expand or change the Court to protect the lives of childbearing people, then that is what we will do. 

Furthermore, we call on policymakers at all levels of government and the Biden White House, elected in large part by the votes of Black voters, to respond with executive actions to curtail the impact of this decision on childbearing people. America must better protect human rights and the lives, bodies and choices of all. We will not go back to a time where ‘States Rights’ were the law of the land. We at Black Voters Matter, along with our allies fighting for justice, will continue to build an inclusive democracy where fundamental rights are protected and resources and power are shared by all people.  

Black Voters Matter, a 501c4, and Capacity Building Institute, a 501c3, are dedicated to expanding Black voter engagement and increasing progressive power through movement-building and engagement. Working with grassroots organizations, specifically in key states in the South, BVM seeks to increase voter registration and turnout, advocate for policies to expand voting rights/access, and help develop infrastructure where little or none exists to support a power-building movement that keeps Black voters and their issues at the forefront of our election process. For more information, please visit https://www.blackvotersmatterfund.org/.

#roevwade #bansoffourbodies #abortionishealthcare #blackvotersmatter #power #love #itsaboutus

[straydog733]

Reading Resolution: “The Billboard” by Natalie Y. Moore

15. A play: The Billboard by Natalie Y. Moore

List Progress: 19/30

Abortion is healthcare and should be a human right. And when abortion is restricted, it disproportionately impacts the most vulnerable populations: people of color, queer people, and disabled people. The Billboard, a new play by Chicago reporter Natalie Y. Moore, takes place at a Black women’s health clinic that gets yanked into local politics when an aspiring rabble-rouser politician puts up an inflammatory billboard in the majority-black neighborhood of Englewood. Based on a real event that Moore reported on in 2018, the billboard decries that “the most dangerous place for a Black baby is inside a Black woman’s womb”, positioning abortion as a sort of genocide and placing the blame fully at Black women’s feet. The clinic puts up its own billboard, reminding people that “Abortion is self-care”, and the debate is on, with people all across the country weighing in with every opinion under the sun. The Billboard captures a debate that continues to rage (and just got much harder) from a perspective that is not often represented in the media. The delivery of this story is not the most artful, but the content is powerful.

The Billboard seeks to capture a broad range of Black experiences with a small cast. The director of the clinic, Tanya, gets involved in the political debate to the detriment of her direct work with her patients, while lesbian board member Dawn cautious restraint. Young intern Kayla navigates the online aspect, and incumbent city councilor Sherry just wants to get through this unusually-difficult election, supporting and dropping the clinic as benefits her most at the moment. Then there is Demetrius: a craven, slimy conservative, railing against gentrification and white encroachment while being funded by white conservative groups, and willing to make a small city election into a firestorm if it will get him more attention. Demetrius is unfortunately realistic for the anti-choice voices of today, but for a fictional play, he could have used more nuance, especially given that he has a personal history with Tanya.

While stageplays are never going to read as well as they perform, even in text form it is clear that the dialogue is a little wooden. It often feels like characters are making big speeches about the nature of their work, to others that they work with on a daily basis, and that at some point their roles should have become more lived-in. But an actor with the right amount of warmth could bring the script around. The play actually has a performance run opening this week in 16th Street Theater in Chicago, and checking it out in-person or virtually would be a great way to experience this play.

The Billboard just became horribly, heartbreakingly dated: the characters discuss how, since abortion is legal across the country, there is no need to debate it in a local election. This play preserves one of the last moments that was true, at least for the time being. If for no other reason, this is an important play to read, and to reflect on how the Supreme Court’s decision will deprive communities of healthcare and women, especially Black women, of bodily autonomy. The script could use some tweaking, but the message is the most vital thing in the world.

Would I Recommend It: Read the play, donate to your own local provider of reproductive services, and work like hell to get the country back.

#straydog's reading resolution #the billboard #natalie y. moore #this was truly a random grab that became the most timely thing in the world