PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I have taken on the them of criminalizing reproduction - a natural theme for a Blog concerned with flawed science in its myriad forms and its flawed devotees (like Charles Smith), as I am utterly opposed to the current movement in the United States and some other countries - thankfully not Canada any more - towards imprisoning women and their physicians on the basis of sham science (or any other basis). Control over their reproductive lives is far too important to women in America or anywhere else so they can participate equally in the economic and social life of their nations without fear for loss their freedom at the hands of political opportunists and fanatics. I will
continue to follow relevant cases such as Purvi Patel and Bei Bei Shuai - and the mounting wave of legislative attacks aimed at chipping away at Roe V. Wade and ultimately dismantling it.
Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog;
-----------------------------------------------------------
PASSAGE OF THE DAY: From a list of anti-abortion campaigns: "
Criminalize pregnant women if the fetus dies due still-birth,
miscarriage or neonatal deal resulting from a self-induced abortion,
attempted suicide, accident or taking of an illegal drug (Idaho,
Indiana) – dubbed “feticide” and include Jennie Linn McCormick, Purvi
Patel and Bei Bei Shuni, among others."
----------------------------------------------------------
COMMENTARY: "The likely end to Roe V. Wade?"
by reporter David Rosen, published by CounterPunch on September 13, 2019. (according to a Wikipedia entry, CounterPunch is a magazine published six times per year
[1] in the United States that covers politics in a manner its editors describe as "
muckraking with a radical attitude".
David Rosen is the author of Sex, Sin and Subversion: The Transformation of 1950s New York’s Forbidden
into America’s New Normal (Skyhorse, 2015).
GIST: "The Trump regime, working closely with local and state antiabortion
groups, is moving to reverse one of the most significant, progressive,
Court decision, Roe v Wade (1973). Unfortunately, Roe is
likely to be either severely revised or overturned given the
religious-rights influence on the president and his administration, the
Senate and two recent appointments to the Supreme Court.
The fate of Roe v. Wade is worse than you think.
***
A recently published book by Robin Marty and Jessica Mason Pieklo, The End of Roe v. Wade: Inside the Right’s Plan to Destroy Legal Abortion,
warn readers that a woman’s right to the privacy of an abortion are
numbered. Most troubling, the authors make clear that while the likely
end of Roeis at hand, it involves more than the end of Roe.
Two days after Richard Nixon’s inauguration, on the January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court issued its momentous Roe v. Wade decision legalizing a woman’s right to the privacy of an abortion. Justice Harry Blackmun noted, “… throughout the 19th Century
prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today,
persuades us that the word ‘person,’ as used in the Fourteenth
Amendment, does not include the unborn ….” The Roe decision forced 46 states to liberalize their abortion laws and remains the defining issue of the culture wars.
Marty and Pieklo show how a number of post-Roe Court decisions played critical roles in undercutting a woman’s right to an abortion. Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)
is the most important because, while upholding the constitutional right
to have an abortion, it introduced the “undue burden” standard
permitting states to restrict abortions. Stenberg v. Carhart (2000)
furthers the power of a state to restrict abortion so as to protect the
rights of the fetus without regard to the health of the mother.
However, Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt (2016) reaffirmed Roe, ruling
that Texas cannot place restrictions on the delivery of abortion
services that create an undue burden for women seeking an abortion.
Nevertheless, as the authors argue, these cases are “a visible and blatant signal to antiabortion forces that Roe could be overturned in its entirety by the Court if the right case were brought before it.”
The religious right’s battle to evermore restrict a woman’s right to an abortion and, in time, overturn Roe is being played out on many fronts. Among the antiabortion campaigns detailed in The End of Roe v. Wade are:
+ Prohibit federal funding for abortions (Washington,
DC) – since the adoption of the Hatch Act (1976), there have been
repeated efforts to prevent federal funds being used to pay for family
planning, including restrictions on Title X, the Affordable Care Act
(Obamacare) and in the District of Columbia.
+ Fetus pain (Nebraska) – anti-abortionists argued that a fetus
could feel pain (e.g., from a needle) at 12 weeks; of 2019, 24 states
had passed so-called 20-week fetal pain bans
+ Heartbeat bills (Ohio) – introduced in 2011 to ban abortions after 5th or 6th week
of fetal inception; as of 2019, 13 states passed heartbeat bills. The
authors note: “With a newly mined conservative majority in the Supreme
Court, the right is more convinced than ever that heartbeat bans will be
the ultimate weapon to finally overturn Roe v. Wade.”
+ Medication abortion and “telemedicine” abortions (Wisconsin) –
prevent use of RU-486 and other drugs that induce an abortion and allow
video conferencing between doctor and patient (especially important for
rural women); as of 2019, 17 states had laws blocking telemedicine
conferencing related to abortion.
+ Mandatory waiting periods (South Dakota) – required follow-up doctor visits ranging from 1-day to 3-days.
+ Mandatory forced ultrasound laws (South Carolina, Oklahoma) –
require women seeking an abortion to listen to the fetal heartbeat; in
2019, 12 states require such a test while 11 another merely mandate it.
+ Informed consent requirements (South Dakota) – the doctor or
medical professional is required to read to pregnant woman considering
an abortion a detailed list of harmful medical consequences (including
suicide) that may result due to an abortion.
+ “Anti-coercion” measures – require women seeking an abortion to
attend “counseling” sessions with a “crisis pregnancy center” (CPC)
representatives, often neither certified therapists nor psychologists
but religious spokespersons.
+ Criminalize pregnant women if the fetus dies due still-birth,
miscarriage or neonatal deal resulting from a self-induced abortion,
attempted suicide, accident or taking of an illegal drug (Idaho,
Indiana) – dubbed “feticide” and include Jennie Linn McCormick, Purvi
Patel and Bei Bei Shuni, among others.
+ Restrict those who can perform an abortion – a doctor, a medical profession, the patient herself?
+ Restrict where an abortion can take place and with what medical
equipment onsite (e.g., ultrasound) to a clinic, a hospital, a woman’s
home?
+ Parental consent or notification requirement, and even spousal
consent required for abortion – as of 2019, 37 states required parental
consent.
+ Expand the notion of “interested parties” involved in a woman’s
abortion from the patient and her doctor to a host of other, often
anti-abortion doctors and proponents not familiar with the woman.
+ Abstinence until marriage campaigns – promoting no sex outside the
marriage bed, opposed to pornography, masturbation, homosexuality.
+ Defund Planned Parenthood (Texas).
+ Adopt “conscious clauses” (Kansas).
+ Adopt fetal “personhood” bills (Mississippi).
+ Promote abstinence-until-marriage campaigns and antiabortion crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs).
+ Expand the notion of “interested parties” to doctors unfamiliar with the woman and antiabortion proponents.
The authors warn that “approximately 400 pieces of individual state
based abortion restrictions have which have grown more extreme since the
election of President Donald Trump and the seating of two new
conservative justices [to the Supreme Court].” They also note that two
anti-choice bills have been introduced in the Republican-controlled
Senate this year – “Abortion Dismemberment Ban Act of 2019” (S. 1035)
and “Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act” (S. 160). More can be
expected as 2020 election draws closer.
The end to a woman’s right to the privacy to decide to terminate her
unwanted pregnancy seems, sadly, likely to come, especially if Trump is
reelected and is able to appoint additional antiabortionists to the
Court. The End of Roe v. Wade is an important, essential,
study for anyone trying to understand how this historical shift came
about. In this way, the authors detail how the “unborn” is becoming a
“person,” thus undercutting a core precept of Row.
More worrisome, Marty and Pieklo paint a scary picture of how the well-organized rightwing campaign to end Roe can be a model for campaigns against other rights. What’s next: restrictions on free speech and assembly?"
The entire commentary can be read at:
https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/09/13/the-likely-end-to-roe-v-wade/
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com. Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog;
