#dobbs vs. jackson

[lenbryant]

Roe Rage in Idaho.

[ladymazzy]

She Just Had a Baby. Soon She'll Start 7th Grade. | Time

CW for everything in this story

As ever, marginalised people - Black, indigenous, immigrant, poor, gender non-conforming, minors and disabled - are disproportionately affected by unjust reproductive legislation

Trauma upon trauma

[kdero]

After last summer's Supreme Court ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization allowed states to ban abortion, urologists across the United States saw a dramatic surge in the demand for vasectomies.

Normally, vasectomy procedures peak towards the end of the year, but the mid-year Court decision led to an unexpected increase in demand in 46 states.

The greatest increases in patients undergoing this elective procedure were in states that implemented "trigger bans" severely limiting abortion access. These states experienced an average increase of 41% in vasectomy rates between July and September, compared to 26% in other states. States such as Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, Texas, and Utah saw rates rise by more than 40%.

The post-Dobbs patients opting for vasectomies tended to be younger than the typical candidates. Data from Komodo revealed a small but consistent drop in the average age of patients undergoing vasectomies in the latter half of 2022.

Motivations behind this trend varied among patients. Some men expressed concerns about the lack of a reliable backup if their primary contraception method failed in the absence of abortion access, as vasectomy has a success rate of over 99%. Others were motivated by the fear that vasectomy itself could be outlawed next. Among this younger demographic of patients seeking to take control of their reproductive responsibilities were men who saw their decision as an act of solidarity with women.

Due to longstanding patriarchal constructs, vasectomy is viewed as a sacrifice for many men, involving recovery time and potential risks, along with misconceptions and concerns about its impact on masculinity. In reality, recovery time for this simple 30-minute outpatient procedure is 2-3 days, and there is no clinical evidence to support the notion that a vasectomy leads to a decreased sense of masculinity. The procedure does not have any direct physiological or hormonal effects on masculinity, sexual function, or masculinity-related characteristics.

In fact, by opting for vasectomy, men share the responsibility of contraception and alleviate the burden on women. By doing so, these men further embody the traditionally masculine traits of responsibility, self-reliance, decisiveness, and courage through taking an active role in family planning.

While the overturning of Roe v Wade has decimated women's rights in America, the increase in vasectomies following the ruling may be seen as a small consolation, a small step toward the long aggrieved concept of gender equity. As more men take proactive measures to dismantle the patriarchal idea that both conception and contraception are solely "women's issues," they act as leaders showing others the intrinsic value in the dignity and selflessness of their decision.

While our nation's leaders continue to restrict the rights afforded to pregnancy carriers, we are fortunate to have a younger generation of the impregnator class recognizing the devastating, often deadly effects of these laws and mastering the art of doing something about it.

For more information on vasectomies and providers in your area, visit plannedparenthood.org

[thoughtportal]

[rehumanizeintl]

It's been one year since the Supreme Court's Dobbs v. Jackson decision overturned Roe v. Wade. Thousands of lives have already been spared from the violence of abortion. Today is certainly a day to celebrate — but it is also a day to reflect on how far we still have to go.

rehumanizeintl.org/justice-after-roe

[jwood718]

Where will this article go when Jezebel goes off the net?

Ms. Rule was questioned about her sexual relations and the doctor "...said she should bring her partner 'in on the conversation' on her medical care"?!

Shit.

What (and it's hard to say this strongly enough) the F.

[mombian]

Shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court decision that overturned abortion rights a year ago, I spoke with two leading LGBTQ family law experts about how LGBTQ families can protect themselves from the ruling’s impact. It’s still relevant, so I’m reposting it along with some new resources and information.

[tomorrowusa]

With Kamala Harris (and a Democratic Congress) you get reproductive freedom. With "Weird Donald" Trump you lose freedoms.

Kamala Harris jumped into the presidential race with a broad pledge to “restore reproductive freedom.” The Harris campaign specified Monday that she’s calling for restoring Roe v. Wade. While many abortion-rights groups are championing her bid for the White House, some activists are frustrated with her position on the issue and plan to keep pushing to go further than President Joe Biden. The Harris campaign told POLITICO the stance the vice president took in a September interview with “Face the Nation” hasn’t changed — support for restoring Roe, which protected abortion until the point of fetal viability, around 22 weeks of pregnancy. “I am being precise. We need to put into law the protections of Roe v. Wade,” Harris said in that interview. “And that is about going back to where we were before the Dobbs decision.”

Weird Donald is trying to label Kamala as an "abortion radical". But her position is basically that of the US in between 1973 and 2022. In '22 the GOP US Supreme Court overturned 49 years of established law and told women that they had no federal right to abortion. All three Trump justices voted to overturn Roe v. Wade.

It's Weird Donald who is the true "abortion radical". The convicted felon and adjudicated sex offender is pandering to extreme fundamentalist Christians who wish to make America a theocratic equivalent of Iran – but with Jesus instead of Muhammad.  

Kamala's position aligns with that of most Americans.

Polling shows that while there is broad support for access to abortion, most people believe there should be some restrictions. A YouGov/The Times poll last week found that 31 percent of voters think there should be no restrictions on abortion, while another 32 percent support abortions in most cases with some restrictions, and 30 percent believe the procedure should only be allowed in special circumstances.

Iowa just became the latest red state to ban nearly all abortions.

On Monday, as Iowa became the 18th state to ban nearly all abortions, the Harris campaign announced a “Fight for Reproductive Freedom” week of action that will include dozens of events across battleground states. Harris, in a video released Monday, lambasted the Iowa law as another “Trump abortion ban.”

[ivygorgon]

📨 An open letter to the President & U.S. Congress; State Governors & Legislatures

🫄 Abortion as reproductive healthcare is a right, PERIOD.

✍️ 56 signers so far! Help us get to 100 signers!

Bodily autonomy is a fundamental right—if even a cadaver cannot be forced to donate organs, why should pregnant individuals be denied control over their own bodies? The Supreme Court’s stance on abortion rights threatens to strip people of their freedoms, endangering lives and disproportionately harming marginalized communities. Forced pregnancy violates human rights and will lead to preventable deaths. We must codify reproductive healthcare, including abortion, into federal law to protect the rights and lives of all Americans.

▶ Created on May 26, 2022 by Ret. SGT Guild, Breeding Chattel

📱 Text SIGN PINRVQ to 50409

🤯 Liked it? Text FOLLOW IVYGORGON to 50409

[queenvlion]

[mikkeneko]

After the Supreme Court overturned Roe vs. Wade nearly two years ago, paving the way for states to usher in new restrictions on abortion, doctors started seeing more young adults seeking vasectomies or getting their tubes tied, emerging research has found. An analysis by University of Utah researchers, released as an abstract in the Journal of Urology, found that after Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a rising share of vasectomy patients were under the age of 30. ... And at Ohio State University, urologists surveyed patients about why they chose to get vasectomies and found that after the Dobbs decision, they were more likely to cite concerns about abortion access or say that “they did not want to bring children into the current political climate.”

[cheerfullycatholic]

When the US Supreme Court published its decision in Dobbs vs Jackson Women’s Health Center in June 2022, pro-choice advocates’ misinformation about pregnant women’s access to emergency care spread quickly, uncritically, and widely in the media.  We heard shocking stories of women suffering from complications and being wrongly denied care out of confusion about ethics and state law. So I launched a project called Pro-Life Professional Insight to collect and publish stories from pro-life medical professionals, who illustrate how they save women’s lives without elective abortion.  One of the first stories in the project reminded me that if I were going to think deeply about the problem of abortion, I should also listen to the stories of women who have had them.

[mariacallous]

U.S. President Joe Biden’s decision this weekend to step down from the race leaves Vice President Kamala Harris as the almost-certain Democratic candidate. As vice president, Harris has largely focused on domestic issues such as labor rights and gun violence. Since the Supreme Court’s Dobbs vs. Jackson decision, the matter of reproductive rights has emerged as Harris’s signature issue—but her record on international affairs and her use of the office’s power, such as it is, offer important clues as to how she might use her potential role as president.

But what exactly are the criteria for being a good foreign-policy vice president?

Since the late 1970s, when then-President Jimmy Carter and Vice President Walter Mondale reinvented the office so that the vice president could be a governing partner and not just a spare leader in case of disaster, vice presidents have had access to both the policy process and the president. But that vice-presidential power and influence are completely derived from the president’s compliance, without any constitutional or legal force. While serving as vice president, Biden himself once said, “I’m the highest-paid staff officer in the government.”

A good staffer makes their principal more effective, identifying gaps and weaknesses in the administration and filling them. Recent vice presidents have been across-the-board advisors who have balanced policy with politics, acted as surrogates and messengers, and taken charge of critical issues or task forces. Mondale helped Carter with legislative affairs, while his relationships with Israel and U.S. Jewish communities were critical in Carter’s signature foreign-policy achievement, the Camp David Accords.

George H.W. Bush was a utility infielder with a range of administrative experience as vice president, plugging gaps in then-President Ronald Reagan’s chaotic national security process. Vice President Al Gore played a key role in the Clinton administration’s Russia policy as co-chair of the Gore-Chernomyrdin Commission. Vice President Dick Cheney, among other things, was the architect of the post-9/11 domestic intelligence operations. As a former White House chief of staff, member of the House Intelligence Committee, and secretary of defense, Cheney and his staff developed the Terrorist Surveillance Program while keeping it secret from much of Congress and the government. And Biden played “devil’s advocate” during then-President Barack Obama’s Afghanistan policy review process in order to help prevent the president from being boxed in by the Defense Department.

Harris has faced significant barriers to helping Biden. Since the expansion of the vice-presidential role in the late 1970s, most presidents have been outsiders to Washington, D.C. These presidents tended to select experienced D.C.-insider VPs and turned to them for advice and help with Congress and international affairs. Biden, with 36 years in the Senate (during which he focused on foreign affairs) and eight years as vice president, had little need for assistance.

Further, he has a deeply experienced staff, some of whom have worked with him for decades. Harris, meanwhile, was new to D.C. four years ago. She is an experienced politician—but primarily in the context of California and domestic politics, meaning that she had limited opportunities to fill the gaps, few as they were, in Biden’s experience. Nor did she have a deep bench of experienced staffers who knew both her and Washington. The early turmoil on her staff—along with some of her poor public appearances—was the result.

But the turnover in personnel eventually produced a solid and capable team in a town where personnel is policy. Harris’s first national security advisor (VPNSA), former Ambassador to Bulgaria Nancy McEldowney, left the position in March 2022. The deputy VPNSA, Philip Gordon, then took the top spot. Gordon had worked as an assistant secretary of state and a senior National Security Council staffer in the Obama administration—and he had many options to serve in the Biden administration. His choice to remain at the vice president’s office suggests that it is not a policy backwater.

Under Obama, the VPNSA also held the title of deputy assistant to the president (the second tier in the hierarchy of White House staffers). However, Gordon is instead described by the Biden administration as an assistant to the president—the top tier of White House staffers. Gordon’s deputy is Rebecca Lissner, who had previously been the acting senior director for strategic planning on the National Security Council, where she oversaw the development of the Biden administration’s National Security Strategy. Harris also has a speechwriter dedicated specifically to foreign-policy issues as well as a military advisor.

Harris was never cut out of the process, and she had input to major decisions. Members of Biden’s team, many of whom also served under him when he was vice president, have publicly acknowledged the challenges that she faced. Vice presidents, however, are expected to be discreet in advising the president to ensure that there are no damaging leaks, and the Biden White House ran a tight ship—so until memoirs are written and documents are declassified, it is difficult to know the extent of her influence.

The foreign-policy issue that Harris is best known for is immigration and the border. The matter highlights her strengths and weaknesses. Biden assigned her to help mitigate illegal immigration after she offered suggestions for working with Central American countries to address the root causes of immigration. She had not sought the assignment, and when she received it, she tried to distance herself from the related issue of border security.

This did not prevent Republicans from dubbing her the “border czar,” and it led to a disastrous interview with NBC News anchor Lester Holt, in which she tried to avoid talking about the border. Holt pressed Harris about not having visited the southern border, and she replied, “And I haven’t been to Europe. I don’t understand the point you��re making.”

Her efforts to evade being tagged with the border issue only heightened her association with it—and her sometimes maladroit communication skills. But over time, she built relationships with players in Central America that paid dividends. The public-private Partnership for Central America that she led helped generate more than $5.2 billion in private sector commitments to El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. These efforts also supported the administration’s successful effort to ensure a peaceful transition of power after a contested election in Guatemala.

Other successes are more far-reaching. Trump reestablished the National Space Council (a traditional vice-presidential assignment) early in his term, and Harris succeeded Vice President Mike Pence as its chair. In that role, she has overseen the highly technical process of developing regulations for space commerce while doing yeoman’s work quintupling the signatories to the Artemis Accords, an agreement that encourages common standards of behavior in space, from the original eight. On April 18, 2022, Harris made a bold diplomatic stroke by announcing a unilateral U.S. commitment to not carry out anti-satellite weapons tests—which create debris that crowds the atmosphere and threatens the use of space. This was a much-lauded move to create norms for space activity, and it places China and Russia, which have not committed to a test ban, on the defensive.

Harris has also represented the U.S abroad. Vice presidents have long been high-level diplomatic envoys—not just seat-warmers at funerals. Almost exactly 45 years ago, for instance, Mondale gave a speech in Geneva that galvanized the world into action to rescue the “boat people” driven out of Vietnam. His vice presidential successor, George H.W. Bush, led the diplomatic efforts to gain European support for new intermediate-range missile deployments.

In November 2021, Harris visited France—officially to commemorate Armistice Day, but also to smooth over tense Franco-American relations. The French were perturbed by a deal between the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia that had ended a lucrative French submarine contract with Australia. While there, Harris enjoyed a good rapport with French President Emmanuel Macron and successfully persuaded the French to sign the Artemis Accords, facilitating collaboration in space. Since then, she has met innumerable foreign leaders abroad and at home, including when she represented the United States in 2022 and 2023 at the Munich Security Conference.

This limited survey of Harris’s foreign-policy work does not indicate a grand strategy or worldview. Instead, her work has been about developing a skill set of policymaking and implementation, as well as learning and using the tools available to her office.

Should Kamala Harris become president, this experience will be critical.

[reasonandempathy]

Looking on from abroad, I don't like any of the recent rulings by SCOTUS ideologically, but they're also clearly correct. The constitution is not in line with liberal or leftwing values. Like I'm not saying "thus these values should not be pursued", but the court's role is to say what the constitution says; and the constitution says "fuck the poor" etc.

They're not though. Before getting into it you need to be aware that there are proper and improper procedures for how these things are done. It makes sense, because otherwise the Supreme Court could pro-actively dictate what the law is and isn't, as you understand.

There have to be cases brought to them, there need to be parties to that case, etc. Does this make sense?

With that said, a brief line about why the recent rulings are actually incorrect.

Dobbs v Jackson (Overturning Roe v Wade) - Arguably the most defensible ruling, it still flies in the face on 50 years of legal precedent, the rulings stand in exact opposition to sworn testimony of many of the judges, and it's still wildly ideologically driven. They were put on that bench to overrule Roe and they took the opportunity to do so.

Biden v Nebraska (No student debt relief) - The Heroes act, which was the law at question, gave the secretary of education the ability to modify or waive parts of the law. The majority opinion is very much a "you're right by what the law says, but it looks wrong to us." They rooted a lot of their ruling on "There's no way that Congress wanted this" despite the heroes act explicitly being for the relief of educational debt during times of national crisis.

Stewart (Gay Web Design) - There is no case. On top of the fact that this is explicitly counter to the entirety of existing civil rights law, precedent, and theory, the web designer was never asked to make a gay wedding website. It was a god damn sham from the word go. It was rooted in a theoretical "wouldn't it be fucked up if I had to do a thing?" It also gives the framework and arguments, in the Justices own god-damnable words, to overturn the Civil Rights Act, Gay Marriage laws, and even a whole host of anti-espionage laws. I actually would like some of those to be overturned, but I'm including them here to emphasize how idiotic, short-sighted, and bullshit the ruling was.

SFA vs Harvard (Affirmative Action) - Also flies in the face of decades of precedent and laws, but more importantly it flies in the face of this own court's other rulings. You may have heard about Allen v Milligan, where the Supreme Court threw out an Alabama congressional map for being really, really racist. That's correct: the map was, but the support for throwing it out was the same argument for the dissent in this case. State bodies can use racial makeup and information in efforts to eliminate racist institutions.

You can make judgments based on race if you're getting rid of racism, basically. Which is what Affirmative Action is intended to do. People can argue that it might need to be more fluid, less restrictive, or reconfigured frequently, sure. But that is a legitimate pursuit and application of governmental power.

There are more problems, and more cases, but there's a reason why law schools and firms all over the country are collectively giving side-eye and shit-talk to this Court.

[docmerry]

Health is on the Ballot in November-Reproductive Health

REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH

Perhaps you have been marooned on an uninhabited island for the past decade, in which case, let me catch you up. One of the promises that Trump fulfilled during his time in office, with an assist from Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell, was to appoint justices to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) that would overturn Roe v Wade. The appointments of justices Gorsuch, Kavenaugh, and Coney Barret gave conservatives a supermajority on the bench,

In Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022), SCOTUS overturned Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992).decision in 2022 overturned what had been the law of the land for close to 50 years. Since then, 21 states have passed laws or reinstituted “trigger laws” that were on the books prior to 1973 that restricted or prohibitted abortion. Stick a pin in that.

Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Coney Barret were recommended by the Heritage Foundation (Heritage), which is a conservative think tank that began in 1973 and has been active in Republican politics since the Reagan administration.

Heritage is the publisher of "Mandate for Leakership: The Conservative Promise" aka Project 25, a conservative playbook for the next Republican administration. It includes utilizing the 1873 Comstock Act, an anti-vice law that specifically prohibits the mailing of items related to abortion or birth control. Project 2025 suggests that mifepristone, a drug used in medical abortions, should not be mailed to patients under any circumstances. Additionally, this law from the nineteenth century could prevent the mailing of devices used in surgical abortion.

SCOTUS heard two cases in the latest term on abortion. FDA vs Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine was a case brought by Texas physicians that challenged the approval of mifepristone. In a unanimous decision, that case was thrown out because the doctors were found to lack standing to bring the suit.

In the notable case of Moyle v. United States, consolidated with United States v Idaho, the central issue was whether the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), which mandates hospitals to provide stabilizing treatment, including but not limitted to emergency abortions, preempts state law in Idaho and five other states that restrict abortion. Once again the court decided not to decide and sent the case back to the lower courts. The justices were divided, with Justices Alito and Thomas suggesting that states may prioritize the fetus's health over the woman's. Currently, women in Idaho and five other states can obtain an emergency abortion.

Justices Alito and Thomas are both in their seventies. If Trump were to win the election in November, it is anticipated that they would retire during his term, potentially solidifying a conservative supermajority for an extended period.

Just as men’s health is about more than just erectile dysfunction, reproductive health is about more than just abortions. Bills have been introduced in the House and the Senate that address In-vitro fertilization (IVF) and access to contraception. The future actions of those who enforce moral standards remain uncertain.

Across the aisle, Democratic Vice-Presidential candidate Tim Walz signed a law that "codified Roe," granting the right to abortion access in Minnesota's constitution. President Biden and VP Harris have considered similar national measures, but without eliminating the Senate filibuster, that would be a heavy lift in Congress.

Regarding the broader strategy, it may not be detrimental. Ruth Bader Ginsburg posited that if Roe v. Wade hadn't made abortion legal nationwide in one sweeping decision, states might have individually repealed anti-abortion laws gradually, similar to the recent trend of states legalizing recreational marijuana.

We don’t live in that universe. We live in this one where reproductive health is on the ballot in November.

[papermachefawn]

isn't it weird how even though spring awakening came out over a decade ago it's literally more relevant than ever like????

when it comes to the themes etc Vs what's happening in American now with the Christian right making big changes + dobbs v jackson