In 1924, Adolph Hitler wrote the following words: I have studied with great interest the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would in all probability be of no value or injurious to the racial stock. … Continue reading
The times are tough, both for women in politics, and regarding political decisions affecting women. Three recent events are particularly noteworthy. The first was the overthrow last week of the first female Australian Prime Minister, Julia Gillard. While I was scouring news sites for comment and analysis on that sorry affair, I noticed the extraordinary effort of Texan senator Wendy Davis to filibister a Senate Bill that aimed to introduce regulations with the potential to close 37 of the 42 clinics that provide abortions in Texas and to ban abortion after 20 weeks gestation. Her courage and tenacity have proved to be a lightening rod, attracting swelling support in the aftermath of her marathon speech. The contrast could not be greater between this event and the actions of Ohio’s governor in signing into law major restrictions on women’s reproductive rights in that state a few days later. As Steve Benen reports, Governor Kasich was surrounded by middle-aged white men as at the stroke of a pen, he introduced wide-ranging and draconian measures that will make seeking abortion, for women including those pregnant following rape, a far more onerous, expensive and difficult event than it needs to be.
How are these events linked?
Continue readingThe New York Times editorial page of April 3, 2013 cautions against putting too much stock in comments by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg “critical of the court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion nationwide. It is not the judgment that was wrong, but “it moved too far, too fast,” she said at Columbia Law School last year, a view she has expressed in various speeches and law review articles.” Ginsburg’s comments are being used by those opposed to marriage equality to caution against a Court ruling that would affirm marriage equality as constitutional right.
Continue readingA commentary by Art Caplan alerted me to the recent case of a “surrogate” offered $10,000 to abort the fetus she was carrying, “Baby S.” After meeting with a couple through an agency, Surrogacy International, Crystal Kelley signed on to gestate their frozen embryos, one of which survived. Unfortunately, at five months, a sonogram showed that the fetus had serious abnormalities, abnormalities that led the contracting couple to ask Kelley to terminate the pregnancy, as their contract specified—although it included no details about what abnormalities could trigger that clause. Kelley initially refused, even though she was notified that the contracting couple was unwilling to assume legal responsibility for the resulting child. She was then offered $10,000 to abort the pregnancy. Although Kelley was opposed to abortion, she made a counter-offer for $15,000. The contracting couple refused, but by then Kelley had apparently decided that she would not have an abortion no matter what. The contracting couple responded that they would take legal custody of the child, then abandon her to the state of Connecticut. In response, Kelley fled to Michigan, where she would be recognized as the child’s mother when it was born, and where she could get topnotch care for it. Because Kelley recognized that her circumstances precluded her caring for the child herself, she sought—and found—a family eager to nurture such a child. In the meantime, the contracting couple took steps to be named legal parents. In the end, the man relinquished his legal standing in exchange for the couple’s right to some social connection with the child.
What a mess…
Continue reading