City Council issues lily-livered statement concerning abortion rights

Comments

62 responses to “City Council issues lily-livered statement concerning abortion rights”

1. Jul 5, 2022 4:39 PM

   Roberta L. Millstein

   Alan: Thanks for the clarification. 🙂
   Sharon: You misunderstand me. I said, “Any impact that falls on men because of an abortion ban are the result of other laws, like child support laws.” The key word there is “ban.” If abortion is banned, then (quoting your words) “men who would be ready and willing and want to care for their child and would be disappointed if it were aborted” are not negatively impacted. They should be pleased. You are talking about the impacts of allowing choice, which is a different question than the impacts of an abortion ban. So, my original point that an abortion ban targets women and is the only sort of law I am aware of that limits the actions of women alone.
   Ron: You say you would choose to be the partner with the “choice”. Would you choose to be the partner who has no choice in whether to be pregnant for 9 months and no choice in whether to give birth, suffering any life or health impacts that might entail? Because again, that is what millions of women in the U.S. are now facing with the overturning of Roe v. Wade.

   Reply
2. Jul 5, 2022 5:10 PM

   Keith

   Alan, don’t forget the Davis fiscal Cry (wolf) Sis. It’s been coming for a decade and the Vanguard has been writing about it for about as long. Some day it might actually happen, a broken clock is right twice a day.

   Reply
3. Jul 5, 2022 5:34 PM

   Ron O

   Roberta: The overturning of Roe vs. Wade returns the decision to the states – where it will remain legal in many of them.
   Hopefully, some organization will “step up” to assist those living in states where it’s banned (e.g., with travel to a “legal” state – as needed).
   I don’t see any realistic possibility that abortion will be banned across the U.S.
   In my opinion, the states that are enacting strict bans are likely hurting themselves (financially, and otherwise).

   Reply
4. Jul 5, 2022 7:10 PM

   Keith

   Alan, I forgot to mention the Covid in prisons articles. I can’t get enough of those. There are 2 posted just today. And I’m always on the edge of my seat anticipating the “Looking Back” articles by some guy named Jeffrey Deskovic. It’s a scintillating blog, that Vanguard.

   Reply
5. Jul 5, 2022 8:36 PM

   Sharon

   Roberta you are correct, I did misread. However, I still think there will be an impact on men from an abortion ban (dead, injured partners from illegal abortions comes to mind).

   Reply
6. Jul 5, 2022 9:03 PM

   Roberta L. Millstein

   Sharon, yes, true. 😔
   Ron, yes, states are trying to step up, CA especially. But here is why overturning Roe v. Wade will still impact many, many women. First thing to keep in mind is that large swaths of the midwest and the south will have bans in place. So then you have:
   Time – time can be of the essence with an abortion, but it takes time to travel. That might rule out abortions for some
   Time again – people will need to take more time off of work, which they may not be able to get.
   Money – even if there are funds to apply for, people will have to know where and how to apply.
   Complexity – I would hope that helping organizations will make things as simple as possible, but that tends to be not how this sort of things go.
   Complications – What if the person has medical complication on the way home?
   Legal uncertainties – some states want to ban people traveling out of state for an abortion. Or allow legal action against anyone who helps anyone get an abortion. It remains to be seen how those will shake out.
   Age – A young preteen/teenager might be able to get themselves to a clinic, but across state lines? Suppose there is no one to go with them, no one they can trust? No way for them to get away? [This might be true not just of young people]
   Bottom line? It’s going to be the most educated and most affluent people who are able to navigate things well enough to be able to travel for abortions. Less educated, less affluent, not so much. So overturning Roe v. Wade has a disproportionate impact on those in the most dire situations. Same as it ever was. 😦
   And I am not nearly as sure as you that there won’t eventually be a nationwide ban. There is no longer any constitutional protection against a federal abortion ban and even though a majority of people are pro-choice, states have been well gerrymandered. I predict that “states rights” mantra would be dropped like a hot potato.
   But my main point here is that overturning Roe v. Wade is, in fact, a big deal. In truth, wealthy women have always been able to get relatively safe abortions, even when it was illegal everywhere. We’ve gone back to those days. (Even in CA, there are counties where there are no abortion providers and the same complications about money, travel, and time from work occur).

   Reply
7. Jul 5, 2022 9:22 PM

   Ron O

   Yeah, Roberta – it’s bad news.
   But I understand that some states (and even some counties in California, as you noted) never did have much access.
   And yes – it’s going to be the people who can least-afford it, who get stuck with kids they didn’t want or can’t afford. (It doesn’t take much imagination to realize that society at large will suffer as a result of kids growing up in such households.)
   Like I said, the states and locales that are already “challenged” will be that much more “challenged”.
   And higher-educated, wealthier people will avoid living in those locales – even more than they already do.
   However, I’m surprised that Texas hasn’t changed yet (regarding this and other issues), given all of the Californians who have moved there.
   I’ve heard that some states are even trying to ban the “morning-after” pill.
   In any case, I do see a possibility that decision will ignite a positive change.

   Reply
8. Jul 5, 2022 11:07 PM

   Roberta L. Millstein

   Ron, yes, until recently all states had some abortion access, but in recent years various laws and policies had chipped away at that. So Roe v. Wade being overturned takes this to the next level. I think you summed up some of the consequences of that well.
   I certainly hope that people mobilize for positive change. So far I am not seeing signs, but perhaps we’ll get it together.

   Reply
9. Jul 9, 2022 12:12 PM

   J.J. Surbeck

   Great discussion all around. And yet, the core issue has not been tackled: what is a fetus, what does it become over the pregnancy months and when can we agree it has enough autonomy (not to mention a soul) to be considered a separate entity rather than a mere organ of the mother, to be disposed of if inconvenient as if it was a mere appendicitis. When does this removal become murder? Only when the umbilical chord is cut and we have actually a full live baby or long before? No one knows and therefore no one wants to address these questions.
   For most of my life I supported the pro-choice wing of the debate. In hindsight, I think now that’s because I never stopped to ask myself these questions. Now that I have, I am not so sure any more and I tend to be on the side of allowing abortions for a limited time (3 months max) and of course in cases of rape, incest and when the life of the mother is at risk. Other than those, I don’t see any valid reason except convenience, when a minimum of caution would have avoided the problem. That raises the question of personal responsibility, which is in dire need of being resurrected in a society that tends to excuse all behavior, even nefarious ones. Roberta painted a quasi apocalyptic picture of the consequences of unwanted pregnancy. That’s one view, but then wouldn’t it seem obvious that more caution should be displayed rather than irresponsible behavior? Why not? Do whatever you feel like and let’s not even think about the consequences? If this motto was applied to all aspects of our lives, where would we be today as a society, not to mention a nation?
   Last point: religion is undoubtedly a big motivator for many opponents of abortion, but that was not the point made by the Supreme Court. The Court found that Roe vs. Wade had been an abusive interpretation of what the Constitution actually said, which is … nothing as far as abortion is concerned. The “privacy” argument was overstretched to a point that it should never have. They merely corrected that misuse of our Supreme Law and restored its actual meaning and reach. And contrary fo all the screaming opponents, abortion has NOT been banned. That decision has been restored to the States where it belonged. What the supporters of the pro-choice wing bemoan is the fact that States are not prevented any more from banning abortion. In other words, they’re unhappy that the nationwide diktat of Roe vs. Wade (i,e, the imposition of one standard on everyone) has been removed.
   PS: as a relative newcomer to Davis, I’ve commented a couple of times on articles in the Vanguard and, admittedly to my surprise since I objected to their content, my comments were published. For whatever it’s worth. On the other hand, one publication that could use a comment section and has altogether rejected it is The Enterprise. I had an exchange with the editor in which he ran all the possible excuses for not allowing comments, from the need for a moderator to the cost of one of the moderating processors to unnamed and unidentified “right wing trolls” who according to him monopolized comments. A sad and somewhat cowardly attitude in my view. If anything, Davissite is proving them wrong.

   Reply
10. Jul 9, 2022 4:37 PM

    Ron O

    J.J. Surbeck: “Great discussion all around. And yet, the core issue has not been tackled: what is a fetus, what does it become over the pregnancy months and when can we agree it has enough autonomy (not to mention a soul) to be considered a separate entity rather than a mere organ of the mother, to be disposed of if inconvenient as if it was a mere appendicitis.”
    Valid questions, and actually much deeper than abortion itself. Touches on the nature and definition of life, itself.
    I’m tempted to point out (again) that the most recent Supreme Court appointee cannot even define what a woman is – legally, or otherwise. And she is not alone – she’s just “reflecting society” regarding that (and trying to dodge the question). Forgive me in advance for referring to “her” as “she”, but her gender has already been “celebrated” in the news – so I figure that’s been established at this point.
    In any case, I doubt these types of questions will ever be settled. As such, I’m comfortable letting pregnant women themselves decide.

    Reply
11. Jul 9, 2022 6:01 PM

    Ron O

    And if we are going to start defining fetuses as babies, what exactly is “wrong” with the argument in the following article? (At the very least, it’s amusing.)
    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/pregnant-woman-given-hov-ticket-argues-fetus-is-passenger-post-roe/ar-AAZoI2r?cvid=88f744047d6748a0a6f48d704b4c293f

    Reply
12. Jul 9, 2022 11:06 PM

    Roberta L. Millstein

    Replying to J.J. Surbeck:
    “..the core issue has not been tackled: what is a fetus, what does it become over the pregnancy months and when can we agree it has enough autonomy (not to mention a soul) to be considered a separate entity”
    There are literally decades of work on the issue of personhood. “Soul” is a religious concept only accepted by some religions.
    “to be disposed of if inconvenient as if it was a mere appendicitis.”
    This displays a serious disregard and disrespect for the gut-wrenching decision that the vast majority of women face regardless of the status of the fetus. I find it very revealing.
    “Only when the umbilical chord is cut and we have actually a full live baby or long before? No one knows and therefore no one wants to address these questions”
    and yet:
    “I tend to be on the side of allowing abortions for a limited time (3 months max)”
    So, it seems that you have answered the question for yourself. Why should others accept your answer?
    “of course in cases of rape, incest and when the life of the mother is at risk.”
    You say “of course” but right now a number of states aren’t making those exceptions.
    “Other than those, I don’t see any valid reason except convenience, when a minimum of caution would have avoided the problem.”
    This shows a serious lack of knowledge about the many circumstances women can face, some of which I have described already. It is also callous.
    “That raises the question of personal responsibility, which is in dire need of being resurrected in a society that tends to excuse all behavior, even nefarious ones.”
    Ah, now the rubber is hitting the road. For one event, which may or may not have been consensual (since giving consent comes in degrees and rape can’t always be proven), you think that a person has to risk their health and their future? Let’s suppose the fetus is at a stage of personhood. How does one night make the woman owe anything that serious? If you promised a kidney to someone and then changed your mind, would you still owe the kidney? It’s hard not to see some serious moralizing and judgemental thinking going on here — thinking that many shared.
    “wouldn’t it seem obvious that more caution should be displayed rather than irresponsible behavior? Why not? Do whatever you feel like and let’s not even think about the consequences? If this motto was applied to all aspects of our lives, where would we be today as a society, not to mention a nation?”
    Again, this is extraordinarily judgemental for circumstances that you know nothing about, since they are particular to the individual and their situation.
    “And contrary fo all the screaming opponents, abortion has NOT been banned.”
    By overturning Roe v. Wade, abortion had been banned in a large number of states. This was a known consequence. No one has claimed that there is a federal ban, but for women who can’t get an abortion at ANY stage and for ANY reason, it is a distinction without a difference.
    “That decision has been restored to the States where it belonged. What the supporters of the pro-choice wing bemoan is the fact that States are not prevented any more from banning abortion. In other words, they’re unhappy that the nationwide diktat of Roe vs. Wade (i,e, the imposition of one standard on everyone) has been removed.”
    States rights — the same reason that was used to defend slavery.

    Reply