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.

and it only gets worse…

. ” The Texas state legislature is debating a provision that wouldn’t just outlaw abortion, but legally qualify it as homicide(…) This, incidentally, is exactly what pro-choice advocates warned about when they said that a law passed in the George W Bush era, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, as well as the related state laws, could eventually be used to criminalize abortion(…) All of these laws are in violation of Roe v Wade, but it seems one goal is to take advantage of an increasingly conservative US supreme court and see if Roe could be overturned, or at least rendered meaningless.” The Guardian,  11 April, 2019

““At a rally in Ohio last month, Mr. Trump suggested that wind power was too unreliable to be useful. “Let’s put up some windmills,” he said. “When the wind doesn’t blow, just turn off the television darling, please. There’s no wind. Please turn off the television quickly!” The New York Times, April 3, 2019

So good to see movie theaters across the country showing @UnplannedMovie — a deeply inspiring new pro-life film based on the best-selling book by @AbbyJohnson. More & more Americans are embracing the sanctity of life because of powerful stories like this one. #Unplanned

— Vice President Mike Pence (@VP) April 1, 2019

“The US is threatening to veto a United Nations resolution on combatting the use of rape as a weapon of war, the Guardian’s Julian Borger reports. The US is objecting to language that says survivors of sexual violence should have access to comprehensive health services, including sexual and reproductive health. It’s part of a hard line taken by the Trump administration in recent months, refusing to agree to any UN documents that refer to sexual or reproductive health, on grounds that such language implies support for abortions (…) In recent months, the Trump administration has taken a hard line, refusing to agree to any UN documents that refer to sexual or reproductive health, on grounds that such language implies support for abortions. It has also opposed the use of the word “gender”, seeking it as a cover for liberal promotion of transgender rights.” The Guardian, 22 April, 2019

“A U.S. threat to veto U.N. Security Council action on sexual violence in conflict was averted on Tuesday after a long-agreed phrase was removed because President Donald Trump’s administration sees it as code for abortion, diplomats said. The U.S. veto threat was the latest in a string of policy reversals that some U.N. diplomats say has been driven by U.S. Vice President Mike Pence, a conservative Christian who staunchly opposes abortion rights. The language promoting sexual and reproductive health is long-agreed internationally, including in resolutions adopted by the Security Council in 2009 and 2013 and several resolutions adopted annually by the 193-member General Assembly.” The New York Time, April 24, 2019

“We believe in freedom and liberty and the right to keep and bear arms. We know that faith and family, not government and bureaucracy are the centre of American life… In America we don’t worship government; we worship God.” The Guardian, April 26, 2019