America after Roe

Roe vs. Wade vs. NYT?

While the NYT still offers a liberal view on abortion issues, with a recent and most interesting opinion tribune on the gradual politicization of anti-abortion in the past thirty years, and calls against the Texas vigilante State law against every single case of abortion, I noticed several entries going quite the opposite direction, one on the limitations of “my body my choice” drawing an appalling parallel between pro-choice and anti-vaccine arguments (!), written by an Anglican priest, calling for “a good that inspires fear and hope” (!!) and “positive liberty [as an] alternative to personal choice and individual autonomy” (!!!). And another essay by another religious extremist, professor at Southeastern Baptist theo(il)logical seminary, that rejoices at the Texas law as a first step, not “extreme” in the least..! Leading to a flow of letters to the journal. And yet another, with a paper reporting on abortion in Spain, which while legal since 2010 allows for “conscientious objectors” in such numbers as to prevent abortions in 5 of the 17 Spanish states. And gives most of its space to these objectors, ending up with an awfully patronizing and religious laden call to the “conscience” of their patients.

it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair

solidarność z Polkami

futher attacks on reproductive rights

The relentless go at eroding and eventually banning abortion rights in the US has stepped even further with the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) attempt at banning the European organisation Aid Access from providing abortive pills (Mifepristone and Misoprostol) to US women, based on the argument of “risk to consumers [sic] of unapproved new drugs [re-sic]”. Just to put things into the right context, these drugs are available in the US [provided an abortion clinic or a neutral physician is within reach] and Europe, by prescription, both for abortion and diseases like peptic ulcers or arthritis, and the FDA itself stated that “The risk of fatal sepsis in women undergoing medical abortion is very rare (approximately 1 in 100,000).” Also, the World Health Organization has listed these abortion medicines as essential since 2005. While the support organisation Plan C lists other on-line providers of these drugs, Aid Access is perceived as the safest option. As in other attacks, this potential ban forces women to resort to more and more dangerous alternatives. Alas, all consistent with a more and more extremist anti-abortion component of the US society that sees ideology take over the freedom, safety, and rights of women. And that is always prompt to hide behind the First Amendment to promote fake clinics that cut women’s access to information about reproductive health services.