So I'm watching the post-Thanksgiving morning news shows, debating with myself whether or not it would be a good thing if Roe fell, as many Presidential candidates hope for. On one hand, Roe being overturned would certainly be bad for access to abortion. On the other hand, if voters continuously choose to elect anti-choice legislators, why should they be immune from the consequences of those bad choices. Were Roe to fall, voters as well as legislators would have to walk the walk. Right now, for example, there's a man in Ohio that continuously gets re-elected, and his only issue is abortion. The people of Ohio are insulated by his election in part by the other Ohio legislators, but also, to a large extent, by the federal judiciary, upon whom we too greatly rely on for the protection of our rights. It's probably a little Old Testament of me, but I'm wondering if actually giving these anti-choicers more leeway won't actually mean that people eventually vote against them, once they have to deal with the consequences of the vote...
In Kansas, a gay man agreed to donate sperm to a friend for artificial insemination. She filed papers to terminate his parental rights, which is appears is the default for Kansas sperm donors. He is fighting, and wants to be involved with the children and pay child support.
In the UK, a woman has received court permission to keep her pregnancy a secret from the man who impregnated her, as it was a one-night stand. The court ruled that she alone has the decision-making power regarding the adoption she seeks.
Foreign: So even though abortion is now legal in Portugal, the code of ethics for doctors won't allow docs to perform abortions. Interesting. The code allows doctors to refuse to do abortions, but it also says that doctors MUST respect life from "the beginning" and that it is an ethical failure to perform an abortion.
Fertility therapies may not works as well as we hope - for example, freezing eggs is still considered experimental. I just finished a book called "Coming to Term" about miscarriage, and the author contends that by and large, nothing is scientifically proven to reduce the chances of miscarriage.
Uganda is having a problem ratifying the Maputo Protocol, which, according to this article,includes provisions for legalization of abortion. In fact, the Protocol does not mention abortion, but does include the right of a woman to control her fertility, space her children as desired, and choose any form of contraception she wants.
LATimes article on abortion in Mexico City. "In a country where unwanted pregnancies often strip women of their
independence and ambitions, the extraordinary number of legal abortions
taking place every day is beginning to diminish the procedure's
considerable cultural stigma."
So y'all know how the DRA inadvertently raised the price of birth control on college campuses and at other clinics, like Planned Parenthoods? Well, someone is doing something about it. Rep. Crowley (D-NY) introduced the Prevention Through Affordable Access Act. The only action alert I see on this is through FMF.
That "Roe v. Wade for men" case? The man lost. So the woman said that she couldn't get pregnant, and he said he didn't want kids, and then she gets pregnant. He says he doesn't want to pay child support, and that he had no choices in the matter, unlike her, who could choose to have an abortion. The court said, as usual, that the best interests of the child, which include financial support, are the overwhelming factor here.