Reproductive healthcare: some thoughts.

Not sure why I woke up with this on my mind today, but I probably shouldn't be too surprised. A woman's right to reproductive healthcare, including abortion care, is something extremely important to me, because it means a woman's right to decide what does or doesn't happen to her body, bodily autonomy--something, lets not forget, men have always had. I don't believe anyone has tried to control a man and prohibit a man from having a vasectomy, if he chooses to have one. Conversely, women, throughout the centuries, have often been prohibited from choosing and accessing safe reproductive healthcare, including abortion care, and often necessary abortion care in order to save their lives. This is nothing new. In the US, we've recently had at least two women die because the right to abortion care has been severely restricted or banned, outright, in several red states.


Here's how the US took a huge backward lurch in protecting the rights of women, just in case any readers need a mental reminder. The United States Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization was delivered with a 6-3 vote to uphold Mississippi's abortion law, and a 5-4 vote to overturn Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, finding no constitutional right to abortion. The majority opinion was written by Justice Samuel Alito, with Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett joining. Chief Justice John Roberts concurred in the judgment but not in the broader decision to overturn Roe and Casey.


I'll get to more discussion relative to abortion care in a moment, but I think the actions of Justice Amy Coney Barrett are particularly noteworthy here. She is the only female SCOTUS Justice who concurred in the majority opinion, the ONLY one. I don't know about you, but I feel very much betrayed by this. Some may argue that she was just upholding the law and doing her duty, but, in my view, this is a totally specious argument. What the SCOTUS did was strike down existing law in place since January 22, 1973. For me, this is a betrayal on so many levels, especially so, when Justice Coney Barrett would not have had to do this. She chose to do this, and the consequences of that choice will be reverberating in women's lives and in the lives of their families until the protections of Roe are permanently enshrined in the United States Constitution, until Congress, the courts and an overreaching gaggle of conservative men can't rescind it and return women's lives to the back alleys and dark ages of healthcare, slavery and chattelhood. If you've never considered it before, many women are feminists for a reason. They've had to be. If you doubt this, consider how many years women in the United States lobbied and fought for the write to vote, to abolish chattelhood and to participate in their own self-determination, instead of men doing so for them. And it hasn't been too many decades since women were able to obtain credit cards in their own right, without their husband's signature--or bank loans, personal and business, based on their own credit rating. In so many ways, women are still having to deal with being relegated to the dark ages. And if the GOP has their way, this backward slide into the abyss will continue and have even greater future negative consequences for women and young girls. The thought leaves me wanting to scream. I am sick to death of conservative politicians and fundamentalist churches trying to control women and tell them how to "behave." The older I get, the more strongly I feel about these issues.


Thanks for reading. Each of you provided valuable therapeutic mental healthcare to me, just by reading this. One thing I know is, as women, and the men who support women's rights, we absolutely must continue to speak up and speak out. For many, it's a life-long journey. My journey began with my parents instilling that desire and obligation in me, and I am so very grateful to them for this. Just one of the many blessings I can count, daily.

Popular posts from this blog

Religiosity and strict boundaries concerning friendship.

Yesterday, I posted, on social media, about how I am reluctant to share with a friend of nearly five decades that I no longer identify as an evangelical Christian and have embraced Quakerism. The comments I received, in response to this, were mostly along the lines of ... if it were a true friendship, it wouldn't matter. On the surface, I agree with that statement, but it's a simplistic response, in my view. So, I wanted to delve more into this in a forum where I wasn't limited to a few sentences, and decided to address it here. I think I can illustrate this best in a life experience I had several years ago. A mother and her daughter and I worked in the same place. I liked them both, immediately, and as the years went by, we shared more of our personal lives, as one does when you get to know and trust one another. These women were also very nice to my life partner, and sought him out quite often when he came to pick me up from work, or joined me there on my lunch break. He
Read more

We either have separation of church and state or we don't.

One of many principles that baffles me about Christians who are also politically conservative is their unabashed effort to try and make the United States into what they term a "Christian nation." This desire is baffling to me since the reason the colonies were founded was to allow for freedom of religion, supposedly, the freedom to worship as one chooses, along with the right to not worship if one chooses, and the freedom of no state religion. The United States founding fathers were so concerned about this, that they incorporated this principle into the United States Constitution as a 1st Amendment guarantee. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." This amendment was adopted
Read more

The party of gopers and gropers!

Senate Republicans block bill to protect Americans' access to contraception. These GOPERS are on a roll, don't ya know? In my opinion, they really want to throw women back into the 19th century, or even further back than that, if possible. The Senate vote on the Right To Contraception Act was 51-39, falling short of the 60 votes needed to defeat a filibuster. Republicans said the bill is unnecessary as the use of birth control is already protected under Supreme Court precedent. I believe this to be a lie. Many felt the right to abortion was also protected by SCOTUS precedent, and we all know what happened there, and what has happened in many red states, due to overzealous actions of Republican controlled state Legislatures seeking to control a woman's right to choose, and also allowing insurance companies to decline to pay for contraceptives. People who fail to see this trend in red states, I feel, are complicit in this effort, and should quickly turn their consciences back
Read more