Quantcast
Connect with us

Bill Moyers questions how the right-wing anti-choice movement still exists when the majority of Americans want abortion safe and legal

Published

on

- Commentary

For many decades men used the power of the state to force women to carry unwanted pregnancies. Once legal, abortion was outlawed in the late 19th century, and women who sought one were treated as sinners and criminals. Many women — some 2 million a year in the 1890s alone — defied the coercive power of patriarchal and paternalistic government to obtain abortions.

ADVERTISEMENT

Women of means were sometimes able to find a doctor to help, but all the others had to resort to desperate and dangerous measures. They swallowed potent concoctions of turpentine, bleach and detergents; jabbed coat hangers, bicycle spokes and knitting needles into their vaginas; or had lye, soap and potassium permanganate squirted into their uteruses. Botched attempts caused injury to thousands of women a year, and many were rendered infertile. As late as the mid-’60s every large municipal hospital in the US had a “septic ward” filled with women suffering from infections. Some women leapt from stairs or roofs trying to end a pregnancy.

On Jan. 22, 1973, the US Supreme Court decided, “Enough’s enough,” and abruptly declared abortion legal. In deciding Roe v. Wade, the court held that because the Constitution protects the right to privacy, in the earlier months of pregnancy, a woman can legally choose to abort.

Conservatives reacted ferociously, and in the 44 years since the ruling, the Republican Party, dominated by the religious and political right, has crusaded to nullify Roe. Conservatives named to the Supreme Court for just this purpose have tried to whittle away at it, and according to the Guttmacher Institute, since the decision, states have enacted 1,074 restrictions aimed at limiting a woman’s access to legal abortion. In 2015 alone, conservative lawmakers considered nearly 400 bills to limit a woman’s access to legal abortion and passed 57 new restrictions.

With Donald Trump’s election a year ago, his appointment of right-wing judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, and his embrace of the conservative strategy to fill lower courts with young, deeply conservative judges who pass the litmus test of vehemently opposing abortion, we are closer than ever to the reversal of Roe v. Wade, despite the fact that a majority of American adults say that abortion should be legal in all or most cases.

ADVERTISEMENT

Too often lost in the furor is the real experience of women who sought abortions when the male-dominated state controlled their bodies and fate. Recall that time and you understand why women (and men) today are organizing, lobbying and taking to the streets to declare, “Never Again!” Against the steamroller of the White House, the Republican Congress and the Christian right, all they have going for them is the courage to stay the course, the support of a multitude of kindred spirits — and memory.

Lest we forget the way things used to be, we invited several women — and one male doctor — to share their personal stories from both before Roe and afterward. I urge you to watch and listen, and to think about what will happen once again to women if women have NO CHOICE.

This article was originally published at BillMoyers.com

ADVERTISEMENT


Report typos and corrections to: [email protected].
READ COMMENTS - JOIN THE DISCUSSION
Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

Both these things can be true: Donald Trump is a criminal — and impeachment is a murky, amoral struggle

Published

on

Nancy Pelosi and Donald Trump

Nothing is clear in this moment of grave peril for America, democracy and the world, not even the things that appear obvious. We stumble around in darkness, our vision obscured, awaiting a more perfect understanding, as in the famously evocative phrase of 1 Corinthians 13:12: “For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.”

This article first appeared in Salon.

Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

It’s time to unmask the fraud in the Oval Office

Published

on

Indictments now point to a vast criminal conspiracy involving the personal lawyer of the sitting U.S. president and *45 to rig the 2020 election. I refer to Mr. Donald J. Trump as *45 to deny the legitimacy of his holding his office. Now, judicial fact-finding strengthens the existing public record of his illegitimacy. The song ("I Fought the Law") reflects the adage that the law always wins. If it wins in this instance then we may claim that the rule of law still works. If not, then we are beyond a constitutional crisis into a plummet to tyranny.

The indictment of Rudy Giuliani’s associates for campaign finance violations should bolster the impeachment of *45. Giuliani himself is now reportedly in the crosshairs of federal prosecutors in Manhattan for violating lobbying laws in his Ukraine work. Yes, impeachment is a political process but the law may make resistance to impeachment untenable. Richard Nixon resigned when Republican senators told him they could no longer support him. Then, it was the tapes and transcripts which tipped the scales. Now, it may be legal fact-finding: for it is harder for senators to say "fake law" than "fake news." The rules of evidence and procedure exist for good reason.

Continue Reading
 

Breaking Banner

How the ‘Citizens United’ decision paved the way for Giuliani’s pals to buy influence in America

Published

on

As I pointed out last week, the most powerful intervention in US politics allowing foreign influence in US elections, which contributed to Trump’s victory in 2016, was the Supreme Court’s Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) decision. Like Michaelangelo’s God creating Adam with a pointing finger, SCOTUS created out of thin air a doctrine the corporations are persons. They added to this ridiculous conclusion their previous creatio ex nihilo, the terminally stupid argument that money is speech and so money in politics can’t be regulated. The result is that corporations can now donate on their own to Super-Pacs. Since corporations are often opaque as to ownership and since foreigners can be prominent on their boards, SCOTUS has allowed foreigners to donate to and influence US elections

Continue Reading
 
 
Help Raw Story Uncover Injustice. Join Raw Story Investigates for $1 and go ad-free.
close-image