Roe v. Wade.

[RMOO]

My niece lives in Missouri so I can't say I blame her. One who had 3 kids already had to tell her dr she'll just go to someone else to do it if they couldn't. seriously its not their business why its wanted but you know, gotta save women from themselves....

My guess is if she were a man requesting a vasectomy there would be no questions asked and the surgery would be scheduled.

Anecdotally, when my husband got his vasectomy (at age 29/30), his doctor did ask a couple of questions: are you sure? and what if you were to remarry in the future? When my husband said that the four children he had were enough and he does not want more (period,) that was the end of the conversation. But that was all it took. There was no second guessing his decision, no refusing to do the procedure because he might regret, no getting my "permission" etc...

I wonder - Do women get this same push back from female gynos, or is this older misogynistic male doctors "saving the little lady" from herself sh*t?

 

[RetroQT]

Anecdotally, when my husband got his vasectomy (at age 29/30), his doctor did ask a couple of questions: are you sure? and what if you were to remarry in the future? When my husband said that the four children he had were enough and he does not want more (period,) that was the end of the conversation. But that was all it took. There was no second guessing his decision, no refusing to do the procedure because he might regret, no getting my "permission" etc...

I wonder - Do women get this same push back from female gynos, or is this older misogynistic male doctors "saving the little lady" from herself sh*t?

I was pregnant with my third when I told my OB I wanted my tubes tied during the (repeat) c-section. He asked me if I was sure and if I thought I would want more if I were to find myself remarried later. I said I was and he said okay. He immediately wrote it in the notes and I didn’t hear about it again until the day of my c-section. And at that point it was just for confirmation.

My daughter had an elective hysterectomy at 27 (she had issues but still could have kept her uterus and tried other treatments). She never had kids (and doesn’t want them).

So for us, neither of our male doctors tried to keep us from our decisions. Hopefully, we are in the majority.

 

[adlgel]

My husband got a vasectomy some years after our two kids were born. When I took him to the doctor's office on the day of the procedure and he was already back in the procedure room, the doctor asked me if I was okay with him getting the vasectomy (I forget exactly how he worded it but that was the gist of his question).

I remember being taken aback that it was presumed I had any say in the matter. I mean obviously one would hope that a couple in a relationship would talk about this together but it felt odd to think that I could prevent him from having the procedure and almost felt like a violation of his privacy and bodily autonomy for the doctor to ask me.

I don't know what the doctor would have done if I had said I wasn't sure about him having the procedure. Maybe he would have just gone back and said something like "I'm not sure your wife is on board with this, are you sure you still want to do it?". And if my husband said yes then from that point on it would have been no questions asked???

 

[Lookinagain]

Yet nothing is done to prevent the man from knocking up a woman, and no law was passed to give the father more responsibilities for raising the child, I don't see how that can not be seen as a power imbalance.

Agree totally. Financial responsibility, which is all a man may have when there is an unwanted child, pales next to the responsibility of raising the child. And of course, that leaves out the possibility that the pregnancy forced on the woman may endanger her life. So I can't even begin to equate money owed, with the risk of loss of life and then the long term responsibility of raising the child. And let's not forget how many deadbeat dads there are out there. So often, the woman is totally on her own and has 100% responsibility for the child.

 

[Jambalaya]

I agree with this as well but I thought I read it was because the states want the man to be forced to contribute so they have to provide less.

I can't quote the three replies that I want to, but I'm replying to @nala, @missy and @Matata on the topic of whether the impregnator should be forced to provide child support where the pregnancy is not the result of rape/abuse, and where the woman had access to legal abortion. All three of you said that the man should not have to pay if the women chooses to keep the child, and I wanted to reply to that.

I think they should contribute, for the following reasons:

1. Bringing up a child is insanely expensive. While I can see the logic of why should a man be forced to pay for a child he didn't want and can't control whether it's born or not, I think child support would not be an issue if everything wasn't so expensive. It's just not realistic to put the whole financial burden on the woman, especially since women - generalizing wildly - tend to earn less and work in professions that are not valued highly, such as nursing or teaching. If we put the financial burden 100% on women, more women would have to abort pregnancies that they have begun to want and feel a connection to, which is cruel. And it takes two to tango, which brings me to...

2. I believe that everyone who has s*x should take responsibility for their choice, not just the woman. ALL of us know that s*x can have consequences stretching 80 years into the future, even when protection is used. Condoms can break, a pregnancy can happen, and a man can find himself on the hook. If he really, really doesn't want that to happen, he can practice abstinence from PIV s*x. There are plenty of other ways to be with a partner. Men need to take responsibility for their decision to have PIV intercourse.

3. And the biggest reason of all that men are required to pay child support, even when they had no say in the continuance of the pregnancy: Because it's in the best interests of the child. If both parents contribute, the child will have a much better life. The father's contributions can make a crucial difference in the child's life. THAT'S why men should have to pay child support - no matter if it's fair or not, a child's welfare is at stake. Once there is a child, who is completely helpless and cannot support itself, their needs trump the man's right not to pay, IMHO. The man had the choice whether to have PIV intercourse or not, but the child had no say in being born. I believe child support contributions from the "impregnator" are a significant factor in a child's welfare. I don't know how anyone can be OK with a child having far fewer resources than they would have without the man's child support.

ETA: I shudder to think how much more child poverty there would be if men didn't have to pay child support when they didn't want the baby.

 

[AprilBaby]

I rarely get into the political debates but have an honest question. Has anyone taken the time to actually read the case presented to the Supreme Court? I have. Life is now considered starting at conception BECAUSE a fertilized egg can now be kept frozen and viable for a very long time And implanted in someone else. Reproductive services have come a very long way since Roe vs Wade. The case would not have been brought to the Supreme court at all but for the fact Mississippi wanted to ban late term abortions but allow up to 15 weeks. They have procedure in place to pay for everything after birth if a woman was later than 15 weeks. The state would take all responsibilities till age 18 for the child. Someone insisted on taking that ban all the way up and that’s where we are. The court did not ban abortion. They gave the choice back to the states to decide. If we want to reverse state law we need to vote out the people (men) who make the laws. That’s all I have to say on the issue.

 

[Lookinagain]

I rarely get into the political debates but have an honest question. Has anyone taken the time to actually read the case presented to the Supreme Court? I have. Life is now considered starting at conception BECAUSE a fertilized egg can now be kept frozen and viable for a very long time And implanted in someone else. Reproductive services have come a very long way since Roe vs Wade. The case would not have been brought to the Supreme court at all but for the fact Mississippi wanted to ban late term abortions but allow up to 15 weeks. They have procedure in place to pay for everything after birth if a woman was later than 15 weeks. The state would take all responsibilities till age 18 for the child. Someone insisted on taking that ban all the way up and that’s where we are. The court did not ban abortion. They gave the choice back to the states to decide. If we want to reverse state law we need to vote out the people (men) who make the laws. That’s all I have to say on the issue.

No, I haven't read the entire 213 page opinion. But I did read some of it. And searched it. I do notice that the word "fertilized" or "frozen" doesn't seem to appear in it. The word "conception" appears 7 times, mostly in the dissent. Can you point me to where the opinion says "Life is now considered starting at conception BECAUSE a fertilized egg can now be kept frozen and viable for a very long time" Because folks are definitely worried about the future of IVF but no one seems to think the Court spoke to it.

And I find this statement of yours interesting:

Mississippi wanted to ban late term abortions but allow up to 15 weeks. They have procedure in place to pay for everything after birth if a woman was later than 15 weeks. The state would take all responsibilities till age 18 for the child.

I thought Mississippi has one one the highest poverty rates in the U.S. So just what does "pay for everything" actually mean?

 

[telephone89]

I'm also confused - Mississippi has a trigger law that will ban any abortion unless its from rape (and has to have been reported to the authorities) or if the mothers life is at risk (and who decides that?). Coming into effect this week. The politician who sponsored that trigger law also wants to change it to remove rape exceptions.

Certain politicians are also in the process of trying to pass federal laws that ban abortions from fertilization. So no, the supreme court has not banned abortions, but they have removed a huge huge piece that is now paving the way for it to head that way.

 

[Matata]

@Jambalaya I understand your position. I've held some or all of it at other points in my life. The two oft mentioned issue in the abortion debate are choice and body autonomy. If a woman has a choice not to have a child and chooses to have it against the wishes of the father, she has exercised her choice and made that choice because she also has autonomy of her body. If she is prepared to have the child, imo, she must also ensure she is financially prepared to care for it by herself. When a woman chooses to have unprotected sex, she should, imo, be prepared to deal with the consequences on her own. It is her body, her choice. If she doesn't ask a partner to use protection and chooses not to use it herself, she is responsible for the consequences.

When there is a failure of bc, I would hope both parties would negotiate a compromise for financially supporting the child.

Using appeal to emotion regarding the innocence of a child, is not relevant imo because abortion is a remedy that would avoid the issue.

 

[missy]

This may not be practical but if every person moved away from states who are anti choice those states would have to rethink their position. I personally would not want to live in a state that treats me like an incubator, a second class citizen. No.

The irony is overwhelming.
Only states can regulate abortion but states can’t regulate firearms and the Environmental Protection Agency can’t protect the environment. I could go on and on and on. Those Supreme Court Justices have an agenda. Period. You can argue yourself blue in the face but it doesnt matter. The fact is this is what they were planning from the beginning and we cannot just take it. We must take action. And part of that action has to come down to people who live in those states limiting your rights. Express your displeasure in ways that count. Voting is not enough IMO. All of us vote and yet here we are.

Because this is not about late term abortions. It is not even about the unborn babies. It is about CONTROL over women.

"A 10 year old girl was RAPED and denied an abortion in Ohio. She’s 10 and a rape victim. A child. Being forced to remain pregnant at age 10. Let me clarify again, she’s a child and a victim of rape"

It is not about the unborn babies. It is about controlling women. Pure and simple.

Everyone should move to the states where our rights are intact. States that support women as EQUALS.
#MOVETOBLUESTATES

New York Moves to Enshrine Abortion Rights in State Constitution (Published 2022)

The Equal Rights Amendment prohibits discrimination against anyone based on race, ethnicity, national origin, disability or sex — specifically sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, and pregnancy.

www.nytimes.com

Thank you New York!

 

[missy]

I'm also confused - Mississippi has a trigger law that will ban any abortion unless its from rape (and has to have been reported to the authorities) or if the mothers life is at risk (and who decides that?). Coming into effect this week. The politician who sponsored that trigger law also wants to change it to remove rape exceptions.

Certain politicians are also in the process of trying to pass federal laws that ban abortions from fertilization. So no, the supreme court has not banned abortions, but they have removed a huge huge piece that is now paving the way for it to head that way.

It's because this has NOTHING to do with the unborn children and everything to do with the politicians and religious leaders wanting to control us.

 

[missy]

@Jambalaya I understand your position. I can only speak from my perspective and I would rather have the hypothetical father of my hypothetical baby out of my life and more importantly out of my child's life if he did not want to contribute. But that is me. I have always been self sufficient and never needed a man. In fact I was NEVER going to get married. But plans have a way of changing and I met Greg.

The point is if every woman of child bearing age who has s*x realizes it might all fall on them if they get pregnant then maybe they might rethink WHO they have s*x with...I am all for doing what you want but there are consequences to each and every action. It is important to know those consequences. And if we are living in the Handmaiden's Tale it is even more important to choose your partners wisely. IMO.

To be clear I am not saying do not have s*x. Enjoy s*x. But choose wisely who your partners are. Especially now. JMO.

 

[missy]

FYI about the 10 yo I wrote about above.

10-year-old rape victim forced to travel from Ohio to Indiana for abortion

Case places prominent anti-abortion figures in position of balancing rights of women and girls while defending restrictions

www.theguardian.com

At least 10 states make no exceptions for pregnancies from rape or incest

At least 10 states make no exceptions for pregnancies from rape or incest

www.independent.co.uk

10-year-old rape victim denied abortion in Ohio

The 10-year-old girl, who was denied an abortion days after the US Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, had to travel across state lines to try to have the procedure.

www.jpost.com

 

[Jambalaya]

If she is prepared to have the child, imo, she must also ensure she is financially prepared to care for it by herself. When a woman chooses to have unprotected sex, she should, imo, be prepared to deal with the consequences on her own. It is her body, her choice. If she doesn't ask a partner to use protection and chooses not to use it herself, she is responsible for the consequences.

I think this is a really good example of theory and practice not matching up. In theory, your logic is sound, @Matata. But in practice, there's a real live baby who is, in all likelihood, going to need more support than the mother can provide alone.

And that brings me to another point: Yes, of course, if a woman chooses to have a baby alone she SHOULD be able to support it alone, but that's a vision of a perfect reality that belongs in an ideal world. In the real world, VERY FEW women have the resources to adequately raise a child alone. Have you seen the cost of childcare alone? It's horrendous. How is someone supposed to work and pay for their life and the child's life when most of their salary is eaten up by childcare and/or medical costs?

Using appeal to emotion regarding the innocence of a child, is not relevant imo because abortion is a remedy that would avoid the issue.

An abortion would remedy the situation, of course. But it seems very cruel to tell a woman to abort a child that is wanted because she can't afford it, when there is a second parent in the mix who could contribute.

 

[Jambalaya]

And if we are living in the Handmaiden's Tale it is even more important to choose your partners wisely. IMO.

Honestly, at this point, if I was a young, single, fertile woman living in these times - especially if I was living in a state where getting an abortion was difficult or impossible - I think I would give up on PIV s*x for the time being if getting pregnant would be a complete disaster. There are other ways to be s*xual with your partner.

 

[telephone89]

It's because this has NOTHING to do with the unborn children and everything to do with the politicians and religious leaders wanting to control us.

Oh of course, I just don't get what aprilbaby is talking about with Mississippi still allowing abortions but "paying for everything" when in fact their trigger law is one of the strictest in the country.

 

[missy]

Honestly, at this point, if I was a young, single, fertile woman living in these times - especially if I was living in a state where getting an abortion was difficult or impossible - I think I would give up on PIV s*x for the time being if getting pregnant would be a complete disaster. There are other ways to be s*xual with your partner.

I’d move. No question. I would move to a state where we are treated with fairness and equality and compassion. Or as close to that as we can get.

 

[Lookinagain]

I’d move. No question. I would move to a state where we are treated with fairness and equality and compassion. Or as close to that as we can get.

That assumes that the Pro-Life movement doesn't get a national ban passed in Congress. Then the only option is leaving the country. I'm not prepared to do that, yet, but the thought has crossed my mind, given I expect more personal freedoms to be limited or totally thrown out, by this court.

 

[missy]

That assumes that the Pro-Life movement doesn't get a national ban passed in Congress. Then the only option is leaving the country. I'm not prepared to do that, yet, but the thought has crossed my mind, given I expect more personal freedoms to be limited or totally thrown out, by this court.

I don’t think that will happen but I have a contingency plan if it does. @canuk-gal make room we’re coming to Canada

 

[Jambalaya]

I’d move. No question. I would move to a state where we are treated with fairness and equality and compassion. Or as close to that as we can get.

If I was a young, single woman, I probably wouldn't want to leave my home, family, and friends (or the place where I was attending college, if relevant). I'd probably take a practical approach of leaving PIV out of s*x and ensuring that I voted, and everyone else whom I could encourage to vote, too.

 

[Jambalaya]

I don’t think that will happen but I have a contingency plan if it does. @canuk-gal make room we’re coming to Canada

Hopefully female voters will rise up in masses in coming elections, now that Roe has been overturned.

ETA: And all men who support women's choice and dignity, too.

ETA2: I mean, let's face it: The banning/restriction of abortion is pretty bad for men, too, considering they're supposed to pay support to any child of theirs. Maybe the overturn of Roe will galvanize a lot of people to vote who may not have bothered before.

 

[Lookinagain]

Hopefully female voters will rise up in masses in coming elections, now that Roe has been overturned.

ETA: And all men who support women's choice and dignity, too.

ETA2: I mean, let's face it: The banning/restriction of abortion is pretty bad for men, too, considering they're supposed to pay support to any child of theirs. Maybe the overturn of Roe will galvanize a lot of people to vote who may not have bothered before.

One can only hope. Initially, the polls I saw indicated that people said they would vote more on economic issues than on the abortion issue. Those may have been after the leaked opinion, but before the final opinion came out. I haven't seen a more recent poll, but there are probably some out there.

 

[Jambalaya]

One can only hope. Initially, the polls I saw indicated that people said they would vote more on economic issues than on the abortion issue. Those may have been after the leaked opinion, but before the final opinion came out. I haven't seen a more recent poll, but there are probably some out there.

Maybe the overturn of Roe will result in more voting once the implications sink in.

It seems that men are already realizing. I read something about a large uptick in the number of vasectomies being requested. How long until men start to reflect on how unfair it is that they're in the position of feeling that they need to make near-permanent changes to their fertility? (Reversal isn't easy or guaranteed.)

 

[Jambalaya]

I’d move. No question. I would move to a state where we are treated with fairness and equality and compassion. Or as close to that as we can get.

@missy - another point: Many women don't have the means to move, or the resilience to move away from their roots.

The only hope is that people vote, vote, vote, and that they will be more motivated to vote as all the implications of the Roe overturn really sink in.

 

[missy]

@missy - another point: Many women don't have the means to move, or the resilience to move away from their roots.

The only hope is that people vote, vote, vote, and that they will be more motivated to vote as all the implications of the Roe overturn really sink in.

We have to do more than vote. IMO
But yes. Voting is necessary. Just not sufficient imo at this point. We are in dire circumstances

 

[Jambalaya]

@missy What else can we do except vote? I mean, I know we can donate to the cause, like to Planned Parenthood, and we can march, but in terms of effecting policy change, what else apart from voting?

ETA: I feel a little helpless.

 

[Lookinagain]

@missy What else can we do except vote? I mean, I know we can donate to the cause, like to Planned Parenthood, and we can march, but in terms of effecting policy change, what else apart from voting?

ETA: I feel a little helpless.

I agree. As someone in a Blue state, my vote doesn't change something here. I have donated, but not sure what else I can do besides donate to organizations, or political candidates in other states. And honestly, donating to a blue candidate in a deeply red state feels kind of futile.

 

[missy]

@missy What else can we do except vote? I mean, I know we can donate to the cause, like to Planned Parenthood, and we can march, but in terms of effecting policy change, what else apart from voting?

ETA: I feel a little helpless.

Support the organizations that provide direct support to people who need abortion care & work to destigmatize abortions.​

​

Advocate for policies at the state level.​

We have to fight to protect access to meds and medical care.
A person has the right to travel between states for whatever reason they want – it is no one else’s business – especially the government’s. If a woman lives in a state that restricts abortion, the Supreme Court’s decision does not prevent her from traveling from her home to a state that allows it.

The President directed the Secretary of Health and Human Services to protect women’s access to critical medications for reproductive health care that are approved by the Food and Drug Administration—including essential preventive health care like contraception and medication abortion.


If you or someone you know is seeking abortion care, you can find trusted providers and additional resources at INeedAnA.com. If you have questions about your legal rights, contact If/When/How's Repro Legal Helpline.

There is much at stake here. Much more than even abortion rights.

A Supreme Court scholar explains the impact of Dobbs - Ohio Capital Journal

Dobbs reverses Roe by rewriting the law of precedent. This will open up many other cases for reversal, writes political science professor Morgan Marietta.

ohiocapitaljournal.com

And from

Seven Things You Can Do Right Now For Abortion Rights | Center for Reproductive Rights

The U.S. Supreme Court has taken away the constitutional right to abortion. Here’s how you can help.

reproductiverights.org

"
1. Donate to abortion funds. Abortion funds directly support people seeking abortion care—including financial and practical support like transportation, lodging and language translation—and are a critical part of ensuring abortion access.

2. Donate to independent abortion clinics at Keep Our Clinics. Small, community-based clinics provide the majority of abortion care in the U.S. and are more likely to be located in states hostile to abortion rights. When clinics close, entire communities lose access to abortion and other essential reproductive and sexual health services.

3. Show up and protest. Attend a rally or event near you—and make your voice heard.Events supporting abortion access are continuing across the U.S.—visit the We Won’t Go Back map and find one near you.

4. Speak up and activate your network. Speak to your friends, family, business colleagues, professional associates, community leaders—and anyone else you can think of—and tell them why the right to abortion is so essential to a person’s life and future. Activate your networks by creating your own message or sharing some sample #AbortionIsEssential posts.

5. Learn more about abortion laws in your state. Click through the Center’s interactive “What if Roe Fell?” tool to learn about the laws in your state and all other states—and which states protect abortion, and which are likely to ban it.

6. Find out where your lawmakers stand on abortion rights. Do you know where your local, state, and federal legislators stand on abortion rights? Call or email them to find out—and urge them to act now to protect abortion rights and access in law.

7. Tell Congress to protect abortion access by passing the Women’s Health Protection Act (WHPA). Congress can and should act immediately to protect the right to access abortion in every state. WHPA would protect abortion access from state-level abortion bans and restrictions, despite the Supreme Court’s ruling overturning Roe.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization will harm millions of people seeking abortion care—especially those who already face discriminatory obstacles to health care including women, Black, Indigenous, and other people of color, people with disabilities, people in rural areas, young people, immigrants, and those having difficulty making ends meet.
As Justices Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan stated in their dissent, “After today, young women will come of age with fewer rights than their mothers and grandmothers had… The majority’s refusal even to consider the life-altering consequences of reversing Roe and Casey is a stunning indictment of its decision…”
We must continue to act—today and every day—to work toward a future when every person, in every state, has the right to access abortion.
"

 

[missy]

My husband's employer sent out an email last week.
I am very pleased he works for such an ethical and pro women's right company.


"

we strongly believe in gender equality and that women’s rights to agency, autonomy, and equal opportunity should be protected. The recent Supreme Court decision in Dobbs struck down 50 years of legal precedent and ended federal constitutional protection of a woman’s autonomy over her physical being and her family decisions. We fully support our women partners who have signed a recent letter published in [legal publication] seeking a call to action to protect women’s rights post Dobbs.

The letter includes a pro bono commitment by its signatories. Our firm has a long-standing commitment to pro bono work and the advancement of women’s rights. For example, even prior to last week’s decision, we have been engaged in pro bono work with the National Women’s Law Center regarding reproductive rights in anticipation of a post-Roe landscape. We are actively evaluating additional pro bono opportunities to assist organizations in their attempts to steer their clients through the legal implications of the Dobbs decision. More information on these opportunities will be forthcoming.

We also wanted to take this opportunity to remind everyone that your health and well-being are of paramount importance to us as a firm. Our health insurance has historically covered and will continue to cover all reproductive medical care, including abortion. We are currently working with our carrier to expand our medical travel benefits to cover travel to obtain reproductive medical services impacted by the Dobbs decision. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact ......

"

 

[swingtime]

I agree. As someone in a Blue state, my vote doesn't change something here. I have donated, but not sure what else I can do besides donate to organizations, or political candidates in other states. And honestly, donating to a blue candidate in a deeply red state feels kind of futile.

Even if you're in a blue state, you can have an impact. If you go to https://swingleft.org/ and plug in your zip code, they'll direct you to the nearest race where you can volunteer (from a distance) and make a difference. They have options such as phone banking. They've identified close races, but the thing is, the folks who brought us Dobbs and the other recent scary decisions (and more to come) didn't write off blue states. We didn't get here overnight. They've been working really hard for decades to bring us here.