Sioux Falls Feminists

"Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent!"
Quick Escape

2019 Feminists StatsSolitude by Megan Godtland

Good Advice is: Choose Your Man Carefully!

Be You by Megan Godtland

2020 Feminism Stats

Quick Escape
Or use Ctrl-W

24 Abortion Rights News Articles
from 2018 2nd Half
Click on the links below to get the full story from its source

1-2-19 Surrogacy should be a relationship, not a transaction
UK surrogates are speaking out against a move to pay women a fee for carrying someone else's child, says Natalie Smith. SURROGACY law in the UK is in dire need of an overhaul. So it was no surprise when, last year, the body that oversees legal reform, the Law Commission, announced a project to make surrogacy rules “fit for the modern world”. A consultation paper is due in May. I am a mother to two wonderful daughters born by surrogacy, who are now nearly 8 years old. For the past four years, I have been pushing for new legislation. The most hotly debated issue is whether surrogates in the UK should be paid. Former president of the Family Division of the High Court, James Munby, has said that serious consideration should be given to abolishing the UK’s ban on commercial surrogacy. Yet the largest UK survey on attitudes to this, published last month, shows that surrogates don’t support a move towards commercialisation. Over 70 per cent of surrogates agreed that they should only receive “reasonable expenses”. They are motivated by making families, not money. The existing surrogacy culture in the UK, based on trust, mutual respect and partnership, has grown because the law as it is puts altruism at the heart of surrogacy. That must stay. Making it commercial would create problems. For example, in California payments to surrogates are typically equivalent to around £35,000. In total, surrogacy there can cost parents upwards of £100,000. We cannot be flippant about such sums. They are beyond most people. The real winners of a commercial model are surrogacy agencies and lawyers.

12-18-18 El Salvador court frees woman jailed under anti-abortion laws
A woman who was jailed for attempted murder under El Salvador's strict anti-abortion laws has been freed. Imelda Cortez, 20, says she became pregnant by her stepfather who sexually abused her for many years. Doctors suspected she had tried to perform an abortion after she gave birth to a baby girl in a latrine in April of last year. The child survived, but Ms Cortez was arrested and spent more than 18 months in custody as she awaited trial. Prosecutors argued that her failure to tell anyone about the pregnancy and seek medical help after giving birth amounted to attempted murder, which carries a possible 20-year sentence. But on Monday a court ruled that Ms Cortez, who was unaware that she was pregnant, had not tried to kill her child. Her lawyers said that to avoid a harsher sentence she had admitted to neglecting her newborn baby, an offence that carries a one-year jail term. But the court ultimately decided that she was not guilty of any crime and was free to go home. "This sentence... represents hope for women who are still in prison and are also being tried for aggravated homicide," defence lawyer Ana Martinez told reporters following the verdict. Ms Cortez was greeted outside the court in Usulután by cheering relatives and human rights activists bearing signs with messages of support. Prosecutors say her stepfather has been arrested and is awaiting trial. El Salvador is one of a handful of countries in the world where abortions are completely banned and carry heavy sentences. While the country is not alone in Latin America in having a total ban on abortions, it is particularly strict in the way it enforces it. (Webmaster's comment: Adult males raping their family members is a worldwide male problem!)

12-14-18 Kavanaugh, Roberts back Planned Parenthood
The Supreme Court rebuffed efforts from Republican-led states to defund Planned Parenthood this week, frustrating conservatives who’d hoped newly appointed Justice Brett Kavanaugh would open the door to stricter abortion limits. Two federal appeals courts had ruled that Kansas and Louisiana violated federal law when they terminated Medicaid contracts with Planned Parenthood affiliates. The states asked the Supreme Court to intervene. But neither Kavanaugh nor Chief Justice John Roberts joined the other three conservatives in voting to consider the cases. “What explains the Court’s refusal to do its job here?” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote. “I suspect it has something to do with the fact that some respondents in these cases are named Planned Parenthood.”

12-7-18 U.S. abortion rate has dropped
The U.S. abortion rate has dropped to the lowest level on record, according to a new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. There were 188 abortions for every 1,000 live births in 2015, a 26 percent decline from 2005. Experts say better access to more effective contraception, such as IUDs and implants, and restrictive laws in some states are driving the continuing decline.

11-21-18 US judge blocks Mississippi 15-week abortion ban
A US judge in the state of Mississippi has overturned an abortion ban that would have prevented women from getting abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. Republican Governor Phil Bryant enacted the ban in March, but the law was temporarily blocked in a lawsuit filed by the state's last abortion clinic. On Tuesday Judge Carlton Reeves ruled the ban "unequivocally" violated women's constitutional rights. Under current state law, women are allowed abortions until 20 weeks. In his decision, Judge Reeves criticised the state for seeking a legal battle with abortion rights advocates in an effort to revisit Roe v Wade, the landmark 1973 US Supreme Court ruling that legalised abortion nationwide, in federal court. "The state chose to pass a law it knew was unconstitutional to endorse a decades-long campaign, fuelled by national interest groups, to ask the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v Wade," he wrote. "This court follows the commands of the Supreme Court and the dictates of the United States Constitution, rather than the disingenuous calculations of the Mississippi Legislature." The judge also pointed to medical consensus about when the foetus becomes vital, which typically begins at 23 or 24 weeks of pregnancy. The ruling means a similar 15-week ban will not be allowed to pass in neighbouring Louisiana, as that law was dependent on the outcome of Mississippi's ruling, the Clarion Ledger newspaper reported.

10-28-18 The women looking outside the law for abortions
Accessing abortion has become increasingly difficult in parts of the US. As a result, a growing number of reproductive rights activists say it is time American women learn the facts about "self-managing abortion" with pills. Kate could tell something was wrong. She'd been feeling nauseous for days and her body just felt different. The 27-year-old massage school student and her boyfriend were supposed to leave on a short road trip together, but before they hit the highway, she asked him to drive to a local drugstore. Kate, which is not her real name, bought a pregnancy test and took it in the store bathroom. It was positive. "I probably lost all my colour," she recalls. "I was pretty devastated." Over the six-hour drive that followed, the young couple wrestled with the decision in front of them - to become parents or not. Kate was open to the idea, but as a full-time student doing odd jobs on the side to make ends meet, she was also broke. Her boyfriend told her he wasn't ready to become a father. "I struggle putting food on the table and I'm in debt," she says. "I just didn't see how I could justify putting a kid in that situation." The nearest abortion clinic was hours away, and the attendant who answered the phone told her that because she was less than 10 weeks along, she could terminate the pregnancy with pills - one dose of the drug mifepristone to take at the clinic, and a second medication, misoprostol, to take at home. She was also told it would cost nearly $800. Kate was shocked. "It would have taken everything I have. I don't know how I would have paid rent." So she did what thousands of women around the globe do every year - she decided to try to have an abortion on her own. Despite the fact that abortion is legal in the US, various studies have estimated that hundreds of thousands of Americans have tried to end a pregnancy without the help of a doctor at some point in their lives, whether through medication, herbs, vitamin C, alcohol, drugs or self-harm. Although accurate figures are difficult to come by, one study estimated that in the state of Texas alone, between 100,000 and 240,000 people had attempted a self-induced abortion. A New York Times analysis of Google data found that in 2015, there were 700,000 searches from the US for information about self-managed abortion - phrases like "how to have a miscarriage," "how to self-abort" and "buy abortion pills online". With the confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the US Supreme Court, pro-choice activists are preparing for the possible dismantling of Roe v Wade, the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision which legalised abortion across the country. In this imagined "post-Roe" United States, some campaigners are making the case that women need to know the facts about how to "self-manage" their own abortions. "This is the next frontier in abortion access," says Erin Matson, co-founder of Reproaction, a pro-choice group that has begun hosting public information sessions on self-managed abortion throughout the US. "Everybody has a right to know information about how to safely and effectively end a pregnancy on their own. It's bigger than this political moment."

10-14-18 I've been an ‘abortion doula’ 2,000 times
Doulas typically give women emotional support during childbirth, but in New York some help women through abortions too. Vicki Bloom has been in the room for more than 2,000 procedures since joining the non-profit Doula Project in 2010. One of the things Vicki Bloom found most surprising when she first became an abortion doula was just how many of the women - most of them already mothers - wanted to chat about their children. "I had thought that would feel weird while they were terminating a pregnancy, but actually it makes a lot of sense," says the 60-year-old food scientist and volunteer doula. "Making sure they can take the best care of the kids they have factors into a lot of people's choice to have an abortion, so their kids may be on their mind. "I also feel like some people may want to talk about how they take care of their kids to get reassurance that they are a good parent and a good person." There's a misconception, says Bloom, that women who have abortions are somehow different from those who have children. In fact more than 60% of women having abortions in the US already have at least one child, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive health research organisation. When they take their place in the operating theatre, Bloom will be there in her hospital scrubs to hold their hand, calm them, comfort them, talk to them and wipe away any sweat or tears. The time they spend together is normally shorter than for a birth, but in many ways the support Bloom provides is the same. "I will stand up by their head and be looking into that person's eyes, ready for whatever they need, while the doctor is doing the procedure," she says. "Even in clinics where staff are amazing, having someone in that dedicated role can be so valuable." The Guttmacher Institute finds that abortion is increasingly concentrated among women living below the poverty line.

10-10-18 Did a ‘West Virginia Republican’ Tell Women to ‘Get Your Coat Hangers Ready’ ?
Parkersburg City Councilman Eric Barber made the "coat hanger" comment in a reply to a Facebook post about Brett Kavanaugh's Supreme Court confirmation. Republican Eric Barber "celebrated" Brett Kavanaugh's Supreme Court confirmation by telling women to "get your coat hangers ready." Parkersburg, West Virginia, city councilman Eric Barber wrote, “Better get you’re [sic] coathangers ready liberals” in reply to a Facebook post upon news that Democratic senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia would cast a tie-breaking "yes" vote to confirm Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. Barber isn't a Republican in terms of his official capacity on the Parkersburg City Council. He changed his political party affiliation in October 2017 from Democrat to "none."

10-5-18 Roe v. Wade poisoned our politics
Today’s “partisan chaos” is a direct result of Roe v. Wade, said Michael Barone. The all-out war over Brett Kavanaugh’s appointment to the Supreme Court would not be so heated if people on both sides didn’t think Roe might be at stake. In 1973, 16 states with 41 percent of the nation’s population had already liberalized their abortion laws, and America would have had different laws in different regions, depending on the democratic process. But then seven justices delivered “an unusually sweeping” ruling that made abortion legal in almost all circumstances—and the country’s defining wedge issue. While public opinion on cultural issues like same-sex marriage has shifted markedly this century, “opinion on abortion has scarcely budged.” It’s hard to win converts on such a fundamentally moral issue about “the way people live their lives”: Pro-choicers, who are largely secular, think their “personal autonomy” is at stake, whereas pro-lifers, who are mostly religious, believe abortion amounts to “extinguishing human lives.” Rather than settle the abortion debate, Roe inflamed it because neither side believes it can afford any compromise. As a direct result, every Supreme Court nominee battle has literally become a matter of life and death. (Webmaster's comment: So let's strap any women who might get an abortion down in bed and make her give birth. Incest by daddy or uncles at any age, rape by whoever at any age, doesn't matter. She must bear the child! Her purpose is breed stock for men!)

9-28-18 US review of fetal research signals the return of the abortion wars
Backed by the “most pro-life president in modern history”, conservatives are gearing up for a new assault on reproductive rights, says Lara Williams. The Trump administration has launched a review of state-funded research that uses fetal tissue, prompting many to speculate the start of a fresh battle on abortion rights in the US. The Health and Human Service (HHS) department announced on Tuesday that it was cancelling a contract for Advanced Bioscience Resources to supply the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) with fetal tissue for research purposes. This was followed by a statement from the HHS confirming a full audit on the use of such tissue. “HHS was not sufficiently assured that the contract included the appropriate protections applicable to fetal tissue research or met all other procurement requirements,” the department announced. “HHS is now conducting an audit of all acquisitions involving human fetal tissue to ensure conformity with procurement and human fetal tissue research laws and regulations.” In the US, $98 million, including grants, contracts and other state spending, was dedicated to fetal tissue research just last year. It has been instrumental in developing vaccines and in fighting diseases such as Zika. Even so, research using embryonic stem cells and fetal tissues is heavily policed: several states, such as South Dakota and Florida, prohibit the use of such cells in research, and there are staunch restrictions on profiting from their supply. The HHS now suggests these controls are inadequate. The move is a troubling one from an administration headed by “the most pro-life president in modern history”, in one supporter’s words. Trump has stocked the HHS with anti-abortion advocates, with evident results: in October 2017, the HHS released a strategic plan that declared its purpose as “serving and protecting Americans at every stage of life, beginning at conception”.

9-24-18 Imagining post-abortion America
The age of abortion may well be ending. What shall we fight about next?Abortion has consistently been the most fractious social issue of the past half-century of American life. This may be about to change. It's hard to imagine, I know. After all, there are reasons why abortion has been so divisive for so long. Pro-lifers like myself see legal abortion as a scourge that has claimed tens of millions of human lives in the United States alone. By contrast, many progressives see it as a necessary guarantor of women's full social equality. These battle lines seem deeply etched into our social consciousness. What could possibly soften them? I can think of several possibilities. First of all, contraceptives have become considerably more effective even just over the past few years. The newest IUDs and hormonal implants do seem to prevent pregnancy with some (though still not perfect) reliability. We may soon reach a point where contraceptives are nearly failproof, with little or no margin for "user error." When unplanned pregnancies become an extreme rarity, the demand for abortion will fall too. If I were in the abortion-providing business, I'd be worrying about a lot more than just Supreme Court nominations. Contraceptives are just the beginning, though. You won't need them if, like increasing numbers of young people, you're not interested in sex in the first place. They'll also be superfluous if declining male sperm counts make conception an ever more remote possibility. When today's kids reach adulthood, they may be so concerned about achieving pregnancy that they lose interest in fighting over whether and how it should be ended. One more possibility looms on the political horizon. What if the pro-life movement becomes so wedded to toxic political currents that it alienates the younger generation and women, finally losing its long-standing influence? (Webmaster's comment: Women will be forced to have any child regardless of circumstances, even rape and parental rape, and even if we have to strap them into a bed for 9 months.)

9-13-18 Pregnant and breaking the law
The women and men who risk all to have abortions in Iran. Every year more than 250,000 illegal abortions take place in Iran. In Iran abortions are only permitted up to the 19th week of pregnancy and only under certain circumstances. Fahimeh was just 16 when she was forced to marry a man 11 years her senior. She grew up in a conservative family. "My mother believed that girls should not know anything about things like sex and menstruation," she says. After the wedding she was sent home with her husband. "The first night with my husband was the most traumatising experience of my life." From the very beginning Fahimeh knew she didn't want to stay in the marriage, but she was afraid of telling her family, thinking they would not understand. Knowing little about sex and contraception, Fahimeh became pregnant straight away. More than 200 million women in the developing world don't have access to modern contraceptives, according to the World Health Organization (WHO). Fahimeh was one of them. She pleaded with her husband to help her end the pregnancy. "I am a child myself, I am so inexperienced, I don’t even know if I want to keep on living, I can’t be a mother." Eventually he agreed. Abortion in Iran is illegal unless the pregnancy poses a risk to the woman's life or the foetus has severe physical deformities. Because of these restrictions, the abortion pill is not available on the market. So Fahimeh's husband bought hormone injections, which can cause a miscarriage, on the black market. The couple then went to a midwife who was willing to administer the injections. Fahimeh was treated on a dirty old sofa in a damp basement. The midwife advised her to lift heavy things once she got home to help the hormones take effect. But she also warned her the termination might not succeed.

9-6-18 Brett Kavanaugh: Supreme Court pick 'questioned abortion ruling'
US President Donald Trump's choice for the Supreme Court questioned whether a ruling legalising abortion was settled law, emails show. Brett Kavanaugh, 53, made the comments while working as a lawyer in 2003 for then-President George W Bush. His record is being closely examined as his appointment is seen as likely to tip the court towards the right. The Supreme Court is America's highest and has the final word on many contentious matters. Judges are appointed for their lifetime and getting his nominee approved would mark a victory for President Trump and his supporters. The email shows Mr Kavanaugh considering an opinion piece which states "it is widely accepted by legal scholars across the board that Roe v Wade and its progeny are the settled law of the land", referring to the landmark ruling that legalised abortion in the US. In response, Mr Kavanaugh says: "I am not sure that all legal scholars refer to Roe as the settled law of the land at the Supreme Court level since court can always overrule its precedent, and three current justices on the court would do so." The nominee is currently attending day three of a four-day confirmation hearing in Washington. Asked about the document, he repeated what he said on Wednesday that Roe v Wade was an "important precedent of the Supreme Court, reaffirmed many times". While campaigning for the presidency, Mr Trump promised to appoint pro-life judges, raising the possibility of Roe v Wade being overturned. (Webmaster's comment: Putting him on the Supreme Court would be a first step in abolishing all abortions in this country for any reason. Women have no rights in this regard in his thinking. They must bear the fruit of a man's loins.)

8-25-18 Women in England to be allowed to have abortions at home
Women who are less than 10 weeks pregnant will soon be able to have abortions at home, bringing England in line with Scotland and Wales. Women in England will soon be able to have abortions at home if they are less than ten weeks pregnant. Home abortions were introduced in Scotland and Wales last year. Now the UK government has said this will be legalised in England before the end of the year. But abortion remains illegal in almost all circumstances in Northern Ireland. Medical abortions during the first nine weeks of pregnancy involve taking two lots of medicine, a day or two apart, called mifepristone and misoprostol. About eight in ten terminations of pregnancy now happen this way. Currently women in England have to take both doses in a clinic under medical supervision, and then leave the clinic after the second pill to pass the pregnancy at home. Women may experience pain, bleeding, nausea and vomiting. But studies have shown the process is relatively safe. It’s the same process that happens when women have a miscarriage, which they usually don’t need to go into hospital for. As some women start passing the pregnancy on their journey home, charities such as the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, a UK abortion provider, have long been campaigning for home abortions to be legalised. The Department of Health and Social Care announced today that, under the new system, women will be allowed to take the second pill at home if they prefer. The change will not be debated in parliament, but the UK health minister will need to take some legal steps so that homes become approved as a venue where abortions can take place.

8-9-18 Argentina abortion: Senate defeats bill after polarising debate
Argentina's senate has rejected a bill which would have legalised abortion in the first 14 weeks of pregnancy. After a marathon debate, 38 senators voted against it and 31 in favour. Its defeat means lawmakers must wait until next year to resubmit legislation. Currently abortion is allowed in Argentina only in cases of rape, or if the mother's health is in danger. Some pro-choice campaigners started fires and lobbed missiles at police in Buenos Aires after the vote. Demonstrators on both sides of the debate had rallied outside parliament as voting took place. Anti-abortion activists have been jubilant. "It's a joy to see that our society can be based on such an important principle as the defence of the most defenceless, the child," said one. Pro-choice campaigners have for years tried to get bills passed in Argentina, where the population is overwhelmingly Roman Catholic. Their efforts gained new impetus when President Mauricio Macri - who opposes abortion - called on Congress to consider a vote on it, and it narrowly passed in the lower house. However, with the Senate leaning conservative, the bill's passage always looked difficult. Among the 30 women in the chamber, the vote was evenly split. The debate lasted more than 16 hours in an often fraught session.

8-7-18 No going back: The two sides in Argentina's abortion debate
It is the middle of winter in Buenos Aires, but a spring-like green has blossomed in the city in recent months. Everywhere you go, you see women wearing emerald pañuelos (bandanas) around their necks, wrapped around their wrists, or tied to their bags. The bandanas are the symbol of the National Campaign for the Right to Legal, Safe and Free Abortion which started in 2005. Since then, it has introduced seven bills to Congress. For years, its supporters got nowhere. But that all changed earlier this year when President Mauricio Macri, who himself opposes abortion, called for Congress to debate the latest bill. The pace at which things have moved since has surprised everyone, and the green bandana has also come to represent a peaceful resistance by a growing women's rights movement which argues that society needs to change. Currently abortion is only allowed in Argentina in cases of rape, or if the mother's health is in danger. The bill asks for the practice to be legalised in all circumstances in the first 14 weeks of pregnancy. In June, the lower house narrowly passed it in a marathon debate that lasted nearly 24 hours while hundreds of thousands of women held a vigil outside. Now, as Argentina's Senate prepares to vote later on Wednesday, women are getting ready for another long and cold night outside the Congress building. Ana Correa will be there, wearing her green pañuelo with pride. Eleven years ago, when she was three months pregnant with her second child, she discovered the baby had Edwards' syndrome (a serious genetic disorder), and doctors told her it would never live beyond birth. "I decided to end the pregnancy. It didn't make any sense to prolong the pain," she tells me. "I went to a doctor who was very close to the Church and he suggested that I continue with the pregnancy, so that I would be able to hug my dead baby." "He said that that was all the help he could offer me."

7-30-18 The GOP's abortion conundrum
These are bittersweet times for pro-life conservatives. On the one hand, once President Trump's Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh is confirmed (and he will be), for the first time in 45 years conservatives will have enough strength on the bench to overturn Roe v. Wade. On the other hand, since Trump was elected, the pro-life movement's gains over the last decade or so in turning public opinion against abortion have evaporated into thin air. Poof! This startling change suggests that conservatives can't hang a simple morality tale on abortion (Abortion = Murder!) in their quest to severely restrict reproductive rights. They will need to take the full complexity of this issue into account if they want to truly convince a majority of Americans of their cause's righteousness. Whatever they do, they should resist the temptation to demonize women in an ill-fated effort to turn Americans against abortion. Kavanaugh doesn't have a lengthy track record on this issue (which is why he was an ideal Supreme Court nominee), but it is safe to assume that, like the four other conservatives on the court, he would be no friend of Roe (which is widely reviled in conservative circles as judicial activism at its worst) or reproductive rights. He is a practicing Catholic whose legal hero is former Chief Justice William Rehnquist, one of Roe's two lonely dissenters. The only abortion case Kavanaugh has ever ruled on went against the woman. It involved a pregnant unaccompanied minor in government custody who requested a termination. Kavanaugh opined that the government wasn't obligated to provide "abortion on demand" and she could wait to get one once she was released to a sponsor or deported. No matter how much he protests during his confirmation hearings that he considers Roe to be settled law, the only question is whether he would vote to overrule it in one fell swoop or kill it incrementally. But either way, Kavanaugh and the pro-life movement will get their wish. And then they will run into a buzzsaw of public opposition.

7-30-18 Why rejecting birth control can be an empowering feminist choice
Confessions on my organic-sex life. I'm not by nature an exhibitionist, but we all have our moments of temptation. Mine often come in elevators, when I'm momentarily cloistered in close quarters with my four young boys and some man. It's crowded, so he is literally backed in a corner. I see him glancing back and forth between the children and me, his thoughts as clear as a baby's bottle. Can they really all be hers? Holy cow. In my fantasy, I address him casually. "Hey, Mr. Staring Guy," I say. "Have you had sex four times in your life? That's great. Me too!" I don't actually say this, because a lady doesn't kiss and tell, even when the evidence is rummaging through her coat pockets and tugging at both sleeves. It's fun to imagine though, and since my fifth is expected at the end of this year, it should soon be possible to shock without speaking. I'm looking forward to some sizzling months of scaring strangers with my shameless fecundity. Four boys, and she's even having another one? Who does that? The short answer is: a Catholic. I'm one of those crazy orthodox ones who shuns artificial contraceptives. When my husband and I plunged into this lifestyle a decade ago, we were recent Catholic converts, and perhaps not fully aware that we were flinging ourselves into a chasm of religious zealotry. I'd read the Catechism, and a collection of important papal encyclicals. It seemed like this was how Catholics did things. Naturally, in the intervening years I've been acquainted with the reality that I am a nut, enslaved to patriarchy and probably dwelling somewhere in the low country between Michael Houellebecq's France and Margaret Atwood's Republic of Gilead. That's a little startling, but I soldier on anyway. For one thing, I like to finish what I start. Also, I'm actually pretty happy with the organic-sex lifestyle. It's a little demanding on certain fronts, but it makes for a very meaningful life, and one that is in some respects especially good for women.

7-30-18 Cricket Australia accused of sacking woman over abortion tweets
A former Cricket Australia (CA) employee says she was sacked for publicly criticising lawmakers over the state of abortion services in Tasmania. Angela Williamson, 39, had been a government relations manager at affiliate Cricket Tasmania until June. Ms Williamson said she was sacked after writing tweets critical of the state government. CA said only that it would not tolerate "offensive comments". The recent closure of Tasmania's only abortion clinic has been controversial. Its closure, due to lack of demand, has forced Ms Williamson and other women to travel to mainland Australia to seek an abortion. Ms Williamson has launched legal action against CA over her dismissal. In June, Ms Williamson used her Twitter account to express frustration about healthcare in Tasmania and local lawmakers. One tweet criticised a lawmaker's speech on abortion as the "most irresponsible, gutless and reckless delivery in parliament ever". CA referred to the tweets in its termination letter to Ms Williamson on 29 June. Ms Williamson's lawyers argue that her sacking breaches national employment laws. "Political opinion is protected under the law. She was obviously shocked to lose her job over an issue like this," lawyer Kamal Farouque told the BBC.

7-20-18 Push for legal weed, abortion
The jurist who may serve as Mexico’s next interior minister has said that she will seek to decriminalize abortion in the first trimester. Abortion is currently only legal in Mexico in cases of rape or to save the mother’s life. But Olga Sánchez Cordero, President-elect Andrés Manuel López Obrador’s pick for the interior ministry, said women “should not be deprived” of the right to an abortion, and vowed to discuss the issue with Mexico’s 32 state legislatures. López Obrador’s Morena party took a majority in 22 of the state legislatures earlier this month. Sánchez Cordero also said she would push at a state level for legalizing marijuana use. “Canada has already decriminalized, as well as almost half of the states in the U.S.,” she said in a radio interview. “Why are we killing ourselves when North America and many European countries have decriminalized?”

7-12-18 Nearly Two-Thirds of Americans Want Roe v. Wade to Stand
As the U.S. Senate prepares to hold confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, the public is strongly opposed to any attempts to overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 ruling that made abortion legal nationwide. Currently, 64% of Americans believe Roe v. Wade should stand, while 28% would like to see it overturned.

  • 28%, including 51% Republicans and 13% Democrats, want Roe v. Wade overturned
  • 49% say Supreme Court nominee's views are a reason to reject
  • 46% think rejection based on nominee's views is unjustified

7-7-18 If Roe v Wade is overturned, will abortion become illegal in the US?
Could abortion in the US become illegal? That's the question being typed into search engines across the world, as people wait to see who President Donald Trump announces as his nomination for the US Supreme Court. He's previously promised to appoint a "pro-life" judge. Since Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement, questions have been raised over whether his replacement will overturn Roe v Wade. That landmark Supreme Court ruling legalised abortion across the US in 1973. There's no guarantee, regardless of who is appointed, that Roe v Wade will be overturned, but there has still been an explosion of search interest on Google as to what will happen to abortion access if it does. In the absence of Roe v Wade, a woman's access to abortion would be affected by the state she lives in. Ultimately, in most - but not all - states, a ban is unlikely come into immediate effect. However, according to the Center for Reproductive Rights, 23 states would have the potential to ban abortion outright if Roe v Wade is overturned. "In nine states (including the District of Columbia), the right to abortion is at risk of loss, and in 19 states, the right to abortion appears secure," it says. (Webmaster's comment: Many men think a women is male property and the right to have his spawn bear fruit regardless of the circumstances must be preserved even if she's gang raped! Even if she must die it's the unborn fetus that's important to him! She is just a breed cow.)

6-29-18 Pharmacy dispute
Walgreens faced angry calls for a boycott this week after an Arizona pharmacist refused to fill a prescription for medication that would induce a miscarriage for a woman with an unviable pregnancy. Nicole Arteaga had been saddened to learn from her doctor that her 9-week-old fetus’ heart had stopped beating. She opted to take misoprostol, a medication used to end a failed pregnancy. But the pharmacist at the local Walgreens refused to fill the order on ethical grounds, ignoring Arteaga’s tearful and careful pleas while her 7-year-old son was in earshot. “What [the pharmacist] failed to understand is this is something I have zero control over,” said Arteaga, 35, in a Facebook post; she later obtained the medication at another Walgreens. Refusing to fill prescriptions is expressly permitted under Arizona law and Walgreens policy.

6-29-18 The risk of a radically pro-life American future
The pending retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy from the Supreme Court has provoked alarm among defenders of women's reproductive rights. They worry that his successor may well be willing, as Kennedy himself was not, to overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 decision establishing a constitutional right to abortion. This concern is fully justified. If Roe were overturned, abortion would immediately revert to being an issue decided at the state level, and as many as 20 states may be poised to ban the procedure outright. But this isn't even the worst-case scenario for abortion rights on a post-Kennedy Supreme Court. What if a conservative majority of the Court rules not that abortion should be decided by state legislatures, but that the procedure should be banned outright at the federal level as an assault on the personhood (and hence constitutionally protected, inviolable rights) of the fetus? Far-fetched? Perhaps. But we simply don't know how sympathetic the Court's current crop of conservatives might be to such arguments, just as we're unlikely to receive much illumination about the question during confirmation hearings for President Trump's nominee to succeed Kennedy. (Nominees have long eschewed answering detailed, specific questions about their views on the most controversial issues likely to come before the court, for fear of sinking their prospects of receiving an affirmative confirmation vote.) The reality is that such arguments about the personhood of fetuses are in wide circulation among conservatives and anti-abortion activists — and that they have gained considerable traction over the past two decades, eclipsing the originalist arguments on which Robert Bork would have drawn in seeking to overturn Roe had he been confirmed back in 1987, and which Antonin Scalia regularly made in justifying his own contempt for the 1973 decision. That's why everyone who cares about the reproductive freedom of American women needs to be aware of the present danger — as should Republicans, who may end up inadvertently reaping the political whirlwind with their votes to confirm a justice who could conceivably declare unconstitutional a procedure that fewer than one-fifth of Americans want to see banned outright.

6-29-18 Legal bid to throw out US sex trafficking law
Digital rights campaigners are starting a legal challenge to a US law that seeks to fight online sex trafficking. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) says the "poorly written" law can hinder attempts to help victims and prosecute traffickers. The Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (Fosta) also trespasses on free speech laws, claims the lawsuit. The EFF wants the law declared unconstitutional to stop it being enforced. In a blog announcing its legal action, the EFF said the law needed to be halted because, in its current form, it was harming many people working on behalf of sex workers and victims. In particular, said the EFF, the vague language in Fosta puts those who call for decriminalisation of sex work, or who try to establish greater recognition for prostitutes and others in the trade, at the risk of prosecution. In addition, it said, the law undermines established protections enjoyed by websites that host content posted by their users. Fosta "vastly magnifies" the risk these net firms bear if they choose to run ads or forums dedicated to these sexual professions, it said. Already net firms including Craigslist, Reddit and others have shut down forums and chat rooms dedicated to the buying and selling of sex for fear of prosecution. The law has also limited the work of organisations trying to help people who offer sexual services, said the EFF. One such was VerifyHim, which logged descriptions of abusive clients to help workers avoid them. The EFF's legal challenge is also being aided by the Internet Archive, Human Rights Watch and Woodhull Freedom Foundation. In addition, two individuals are backing it - one a spokesperson for sex workers and another a masseur who now finds it hard to advertise his non-sexual service.

24 Abortion Rights News Articles
from 2018 2nd Half

Abortion Rights News Articles from 2018 1st Half