Pay Attention: This Story Has Too Many Negatives

1/19/26 Colorado Sun article reports on a suit Colorado just lost.  One of the abortifacient pills is apparently two different drugs.  If you take the first pill without the second, your pregnancy will continue just fine.  Some clinics were beginning to offer women treatment to allow them to Undo the Undo (so to speak).  Colorado made that illegal. Yes, the defense of a woman's choice did not include the choice to change their mind. Unsurprisingly, Colorado lost this suit.

Do You Wonder Why We Have So Msny Leftist Cat Ladies?

7/25 Journal of Psychistric Research:

Highlights

• •
  Mental health hospitalization rates are higher after abortion than deliveries.
• •
  Risk is elevated for psychiatric disorders, substance use, and suicide attempts.
• •
  Patients with preexisting mental illness or age <25 years are most at risk.
• •
  Risk of mental disorders is greatest within five years of abortion.
• •
  Risk of most mental disorders disappears 17 years after an abortion.

Conservative Woman reports on efforts to legalize abortion until birth in Britain, which like most European nations has much more restrictive abortion laws than Roe v. Wade America.

When Democrats Lose Their Minds

This is something even Puritans did not attempt to regulate.  2/10/25 Newsweek:

"Abill proposed to the Ohio statehouse will make male ejaculation without intent to have a baby, a fineable offense of up to $10,000.

"The bill has been proposed by State Representatives Anita Somani and Tristan Rader, who wrote it to point out what they see as the absurdity of rules that control women's bodies but do not control men's. It has not been formally introduced to the House Floor yet.

"Per Somani and Rader, men would face a $1,000 first offense, $5,000 second offense, and $10,000 subsequent offense fine to "discharge semen or genetic material without intent to fertilize an embryo.""

Unless Democrats think semen are capable of birth,  the analogy to abortion is insane.   How will they enforce this?  Cameras in every room?  

Democrats are just insane.

What An Absurd Piece of Political Theater

 2/6/25 Fox News:

A Michigan Democratic state lawmaker said Wednesday she sterilized herself to prevent getting pregnant during President Donald Trump’s term in office.

"Just under two weeks ago, I underwent surgery to ensure that I would never have to navigate a pregnancy in Donald Trump’s America," Michigan State Rep. Laurie Pohutsky said.

The lawmaker made the eye-popping remarks outside the Michigan State Capitol to a group of protesters gathered as part of the so-called 50501 movement, which held demonstrations across the country to voice their opposition to the Trump administration. The number 50501 refers to the group’s stated goal of holding 50 protests in 50 states on 1 day. 

There are less permanent and less risky methods.  Does she not have a relationship strong enough with her partner to use any of the many highly effective contraceptive merhods available to her?  She is removing herself from the gene pool.  This is perhaps for the best.

This Concerns Me and I Am Pro-Life

1/2/24 Newsmax:

The U.S. government cannot enforce federal guidance in Texas requiring emergency room doctors to perform abortions if necessary to stabilize emergency room patients, a federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday, siding with the state in a lawsuit accusing President Joe Biden's administration of overstepping its authority.

The ruling by a unanimous panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals comes amid a wave of lawsuits focusing on when abortions can be provided in states whose abortion bans have exceptions for medical emergencies. 

If by stabilize, they mean prevent her from dying, that is a problem.  When the rare but troubling situation develops where you have to choose which of two lives takes precdence, thev historical tradition has been to save the mother's life; a baby who is a threat to the life of the mother creates a self-defense scenario. 

The article suggests that this may be a dispute about what "stabilization" includes.

I Think Someone Missed the Point of Opposing Abortion

5/12/23 USA Today:

"A 22-year-old man was arrested and charged with murder after police say he got angry at his girlfriend for having an abortion out of state and fatally shot her in a Dallas parking lot this week."

Tragedy and stupidity all rolled together.

Maybe For the Wrong Reasons

10/26/22 BBC:

"Lenk, 35, and his partner have no children, and want to keep it that way. When the United States Supreme Court ruled in Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization that there is no constitutional right to an abortion – overturning Roe v Wade, the decision that protected abortion rights since 1973 – he scheduled a vasectomy.

“I think like a lot of people in my situation, this is something that we were probably on the fence about before Roe v Wade got overturned,” says Lenk. “But this is the only option to keep my partner safe at this juncture, because I live in Missouri. And Missouri had one of the ‘trigger laws’ that went into effect, [criminalising abortion] right as it got overturned. It just got really scary and really real all at once.”

I am pleased to see men as well as women taking responsibility for their actions.   I would like to think that avoiding putting a woman through an abortion would be sufficient but many men are likely imagining 18 years of child support to a woman who little more than a one-night stand.  Of course, there are less permanent solutions like condoms.   If the loss of sensation is that important you are a little too focused on yourself. 

Enshrining Abortion into Law

I see Biden is talking about having Congress guarantee abortion rights if Democrats retain control of Congress in the midterms.

The Dobbs decision ruled that the states were free to control abortion.  How could Congress overturn that?  They lacked authority to overturn Roe v. Wade (1973).  Remember: the progressives believe that the only majority vote that decides anything is a majority of nine people in black robes.

Sen. Graham's Proposal for a National Abortion Law and Gun Rights

 Prof. Reynolds 9/15/22 New York Post column:

The Supreme Court earlier this year found the US Constitution does not recognize the right to have an abortion. Now Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) wants Congress to act.

His bill, modeled on the Mississippi legislation the court upheld in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, would ban abortion after the 15th week following conception.

Graham’s bill isn’t especially radical — most European countries actually have stiffer rules, generally cutting off any-reason abortion between weeks 12 and 14.

Some MAGA Republicans think Sen. Graham is actually trying to help the Democrats because much of GOPe does not want to be a majority party.  (This is a weird response from a group of "semi-fascists.") Then they would have no excuse for failing to undo the damage that they blame on Democrats.

I am prepared to suggest a different explanation.  Democrats are hell-bent on passing a national law to protect abortions up to T-1 millisecond.  Democrats might argue that Congress lacks authority to regulate abortion at all, because the Constitution gives Congress no such authority.  Yes, which would sink the argument for a national right to abortion law.

Before I go into my historical observations, let me say that leaving abortion laws to the people of each state and therefore to their elected representatives seems the best solution.  The Constitution distributed power to the states in most areas.  Each state is effectively a laboratory where we get to see the consequences of each law.  If California decides that abortion is so critical that it needs to be both lawful and even subsidized, the taxpayers may eventually decide this transfer of wealth to abortion doctors largely for the benefit of women refusing to make sensible decisions over their bodies makes no sense.  It also subsidizes the creeps getting teenagers pregnant who might otherwise get stuck with child support payments or statutory rape charges.

An interesting consequence of all this includes the gradual diminution of the population of abortion-on-demand states, reducing their national influence.  This is good; aborting a state's next generation of people will diminish its seats in the House of Representatives.

But what rationale could Democrats make to justify a national abortion-rights law (or for that matter, pro-lifers in support of  Sen. Graham's proposal).  The Roe v. Wade (1973) decision argued that abortion bans were relatively recent:

In this country, the law in effect in all but a few States until mid-19th century was the pre-existing English common law....

It is thus apparent that at common law, at the time of the adoption of our Constitution, and throughout the major portion of the 19th century, abortion was viewed with less disfavor than under most American statutes currently in effect. 

Even if true, the Court's decision continues by arguing:

This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. 

The question that arises from the incorporation through the 14th Amendment is whether a right to abortion was recognized in 1868.  As I have previously mentioned:

A bit more digging led to Horatio R. Storer, M.D., On Criminal Abortion in America (1860) which lists all the state abortion laws then in effect and that it appears to be all the states, contrary to Roe's claim.

 So on what basis might Congress legislate?  There is the incredibly powerful interstate commerce clause.  As others have observed:

The construction of the commerce clause makes it clear that Congress has the same commerce regulating power over interstate commerce (trade across the borders of a state) as it does over foreign trade. That means the federal government can theoretically ban trade of a given product across state lines. But the purpose behind delegating Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce was not to restrict trade, but to keep it free and open.

The framers wanted the federal government to possess the power to prevent states from inhibiting trade through levying tariffs on neighbors. For instance, to have the power to stop Tennessee from slapping a fee on bourbon imported from Kentucky. It was a power intended to protect free and robust trade. The commerce clause also gave the federal government the authority to pursue a unified trade policy with other nations, as opposed to each state enforcing its own policy.

 James Madison explained the intent of the commerce clause in a letter to J. C. Cabell dated February 13, 1825.

I always foresaw difficulties might be started in relation to the interstate commerce power…Being in the same terms with the power over foreign commerce, the same extent, if taken literally, would belong to it. Yet it is very certain it grew out of the abuse of the power of the importing states in taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a negative and preventative provision against injustice amongst the states themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government, in which alone, however, the remedial power could be lodged. And it will be safer to leave the power with this key to it, than to extend it all the qualities and incidental means belonging to the power over foreign commerce.

The federal government was never intended to micromanage the economy through wage laws, labor laws, agricultural regulations, industrial regulations, healthcare laws and the like. Those powers were left to the states and the people. When the federal government regulates the economy and it does not directly relate to trade, it is usurping power and violating the Constitution.

Of course, Congress has repeatedly used interstate commerce regulation to prohibit all sorts of offensive behavior that would ordinarily be considered intrastate.  Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States (1964) required a business to abide by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (prohibiting racial discrimination in accommodations):

It is readily accessible to interstate highways 75 and 85 and state highways 23 and 41. Appellant solicits patronage from outside the State of Georgia through various national advertising media, including magazines of national circulation; it maintains over 50 billboards and highway signs within the State, soliciting patronage for the motel; it accepts convention trade from outside Georgia and approximately 75% of its registered guests are from out of State.

One could use this same ahistorical interstate commerce clause to regulate any abortion provider that was in proximity to interstate highways, that advertised its services (which would include a webpage) or provided services to a majority of out of state patients.

So here is the additional wrinkle.  If Democrats insist that they have authority to make abortion on demand a national law, a pro-gun majority could use similar logic to require every state to allow open carry, with the added feature that the 2nd Amendment is actually in the written Constitution, not just in the special version that pro-choice justices use (or are those special glasses they are using?)  Furthermore, the 14th Amendment was explicitly adopted to guarantee the right to keep and bear arms.  

The same interstate commerce clause logic from Heart of Atlanta could be used to require almost all businesses along interstates or that advertise nationally (e.g., McDonald's, Olive Garden, Denny's) to not discriminate against open firearms carriers.

Sen. Graham's proposal is bad politics but opens the very real possibility for a tit-for-tat from a future pro-gun Congress.

The 10-Year-Old Rape Victim Story Gets Stinkier and Stinkier (The Rape Apparently Happened)

Over at Substack some troublemaker points out that even this rape victim exists, Ohio law does not prohibit an abortion.   It is a fetal heartbeat law.  There is no six week limit in the law.

It now appears the rape happened.  7/13/22 Columbus Dispatch:

A Columbus man has been charged with impregnating a 10-year-old Ohio girl, whose travel to Indiana to seek an abortion led to international attention following the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v Wade and activation of Ohio's abortion law.

Gerson Fuentes, 27, whose last known address was an apartment on Columbus' Northwest Side, was arrested Tuesday after police say he confessed to raping the child on at least two occasions. He's since been charged with rape, a felony of the first degree in Ohio.

Columbus police were made aware of the girl's pregnancy through a referral by Franklin County Children Services that was made by her mother on June 22, Det. Jeffrey Huhn testified Wednesday morning at Fuentes' arraignment. On June 30, the girl underwent a medical abortion in Indianapolis, Huhn said.

Huhn also testified that DNA from the clinic in Indianapolis is being tested against samples from Fuentes, as well as the child's siblings, to confirm contribution to the aborted fetus.

A  10-year-old?   If  convicted, let us hope he never comes out.  I understand child abusers are not held in high regard by savage felons.

Why Blue Corporations May Successfully Stop the Flow into Red States

Instapundit.com points out that woke corporations offering to relocate employees to abortion-friendly states may have more than virtue signaling at heart.  Women (or whatever you call those who can give birth) who have babies need maternity leave and health insurance for those babies.  Abortion is cheaper.   Some birthing persons actually get so attached to the Cuisinarts with legs that they decide to be perverts and raise their own children.   This means training replacements.  The comments are worth reading as RedStaters take joy that a lot of Blues may decide to stay in their no police, no prisons paradises with $6/gallon gas.

In States That Severely Restrict Abortion

Something that all of us as citizens, legislators, and parents need to take very seriously:

1. No matter how much we lecture, model, cajole, or beg: some of our young people are going to be sexually active.  We might prefer otherwise, but protected sex is far better than unprotected both from a disease and pregnancy standpoint.   I know that many are reluctant to make condoms readily available to minors for fear that it may cause kids to start having sex because they perceive the risks to be lower and there is a perceived acceptability about it.  The harsh truth is that some kids are going to do what they swear they will not do.  Being a teenager is not that many decades away for me and there was precious little that restrains a teenaged boy's desires.  (While it never seemed to be this way when I was a teenager, at least of those that I knew, this seems to be often true for teenaged girls as well.)  Make sure that your teenagers know where the condoms are if you leave the house for the evening or go out of town for the weekend because that is time of the highest risk of minor sex.

2. Emphasize to boys that unprotected sex, or even the rare condom failure event, can lead to lifelong responsibilities for child support and considerable consternation and likely life-changing consequences for the young woman who has finally bent to his desires.

3. Make sure that every young woman who has now ended up pregnant is aware that your sympathy for her situation does not make you love her less.  Her willingness to do the right thing by this baby overshadows whatever moment of lust overcame her better senses.

4. Make sure that every young man (and their fathers) realize that this is not "boys will be boys" but misbehavior that has long-term and negative consequences.  Do not expect a car when you reach driving age: you will be paying child support and trying to be a father, or as close to it as you can manage (assuming the mother still wants anything to do with you).

5. Watch carefully for evidence that an adult man is showing too much interest in your daughter.   It would be sweet if every teen pregnancy was a poorly thought out Romeo and Juliet matter.  In California, one of the reasons Gov. Wilson put a premium on prosecuting statutory rape cases is that many were men in their 20s and above getting 13-year-olds pregnant.  This sort of predatory behavior is greatly accentuated by the fact that many girls have a desperate need for romance and feeling loved.  Too many men are prepared to simulate some emotional intimacy for some very real physical intimacy.  If a case goes to court, do not let the "star-crossed lovers" claim sway you.  Such men are often repeaters.  Lock them up.  And as I said, watch for inappropriate age combination relationships.   Be prepared to sound 1950s: "He is too old for you."  That sounds so much nicer than the cruder description of what he is after.

6. Try to have a parent home.  When I was young, most homes had an adult present at all hours; usually Susie Homemaker.  It is a lot easier for sexual temptation to win in a home where no adults are present.

Two Can Play At That Game

Infuriated Democrats are yammering about statutorially protecting abortion through federal law, akin to how the Civil Rights Act of 1964 used Congressional authority to regulate interstate commerce.  

The Constitution's regulation of interstate commerce clause was originally not to give the national government any power.  It was to prevent states from passing laws that did so: such as conflicting monopolies on steamship ferry service between New Jersey and New York.

But even if we accept that this was an actual grant of authority, there must be interstate commerce involved.   I have previously mentioned Wickard v. Filburn (1942) which allowed Congress to regulate the growing of wheat that never left the farm much less crossed a state border.  

The Civil Right Act of 1964 survived the Heart of Atlanta suit because Heart of Atlanta advertised in various interstate publications.   It would be hard to claim they were not engaged in interstate commerce without withholding a laugh.  Other provisions, such as sec. 701 prohibiting employment discrimination applied to all businesses employing 100 people or more (dropping to 75 and 50 employees in later years) based on the unsupported claim that a business that size must be engaged in interstate commerce.  Even if they sold only in their own state they likely did business with others that were engaged in interstate commerce.  This seems a profoundly debatable claim, but so what?  It is likely true.  Almost everything but sand and lemonade stand sales moves, has moved, or could move in interstate commerce.

So what if Congress statutorily protects abortion on the theory that the availability of abortions affects interstate commerce.  Fine, when President DeSantis takes the White House, Congress can use the same rationale to prohibit abortion in every state, unlike a post-Roe America where half the states will either have no abortion laws or fairly liberal ones.

Oh and then we get to using the same logic to strike down all gun license laws.  Here we are on stronger ground because Congress actually declared that was their goal in passing the 14th Amendment. 

Someone Suggests a Thought Experiment

 5/5/22 BoundingIntoComics:

Gaming Journalist Simon Gwynn Questions Whether You Would Kill Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas And Samuel Alito Given The Chance

Now, imagine if a white person proposed a similar idea for Virginia's Lt. Governor?

It would clearly be white supremacy in action.  No progressive would doubt it for a second.  

Those MAGAs Are A Threat to Democracy!

 See what their behavior is causing at the Supreme Court!  5/5/22 NBC News:

WASHINGTON — Workers began installing tall fencing around the Supreme Court Wednesday night after another evening of protests over the leaked opinion that signaled justices plan to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Eight-foot panels of fencing were erected along the south side of the Supreme Court building, which is across the street from the Capitol. The barriers replaced smaller bike racks that were removed earlier in the evening.

Police officers on the scene described the fencing as "nonscalable," similar to the security perimeter that was built around the Capitol in the wake of the Jan. 6 attack.

Construction of the new fence comes as people have flocked to the area near the Supreme Court to participate in demonstrations since Monday.

Supporters and opponents of abortion rights have rallied outside the building after Politico published a leaked draft opinion that suggests a majority of justices are in favor of reversing the 1973 landmark Roe v. Wade ruling.

Yes, the Republic is in danger.  But not just because a tiny minority of Trump supporters engage in aggravated tourism, but because the progressives have spent a generation insisting that if they do not get their way, they will burn it down. 

Also, nonscalable seems like a pretty strong claim.  

1. A and B lift C onto 6' tall D's shoulders.  He pivots over the fence.  

2. A and B pivot an 8' ladder over top of fence, insert tongs through fence, pull ladder to fence.  Tie it fence.

3. Erect 8' fence on outside of fence.

4. Climb up exterior fence; climb down interior fence.

Neither are fast operations and a single incident can be stopped by U.S. Marshals.  But a hundred such along the fence would be unstoppable without tear gas or gunfire.  Neither would be very good optics.  Even the mainstream media would have a hard time making A, B, C, and D look reasonable.

Too Long For Bumper Stickers

"If He Won't Wear a Condom, He Doesn't Need It That Badly"

"If Contraception is a Hassle, Wait Until You Need an Abortion"

"If He Can't Wait Until You Turn 18, Will He Still Be With At 21?"

I Think a Jan. 6 From the Left is Coming

5/2/22 Reuters:

(Reuters) - A leaked initial draft majority opinion suggests the U.S. Supreme Court will vote to overturn the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion nationwide, Politico reported on Monday.

My guess is a disgruntled justice or clerk is trying to put pressure on the Court.  Does anyone doubt that riots at the Court or physical attacks on justices in the majority will happen?  But this time, it will be the righteous anger of the people at a misogynistic racist Supreme Court.

As I mentioned a while back, I have long thought the Roe decision may have been the right conclusion by the wrong means.  More recently, I checked a claim that Mississippi's abortion law was originally to punish slave women for aborting the valuable property of the masters.  In the process I found that Roe's claim that abortion restrictions were late 19th century was utterly false.  Every state had an abortion law of some sort before the Civil War.  Applying this supposed right to the States through the 14th Amendment just does not fly.

What will this in practice mean?  Many States (e g., California, New York, Hawaii and even some Red States, will likely leave abortion lawful, with perhaps a few limiting third trimester abortions, which most Americans agree should be unlawful.  Many (Idaho, Texas, the Dakotas) will either ban it or adopt fetal heartbeat laws).  

Those who are pro-choice can either riot or do the cheapest and least divisive path: scholarships for women who live in pro-life states to travel to pro-choice States and return home.  This should not be a horrible expense; many women may well be able to pay for this themselves; the remaining ones are presumably facing such a horrible decision once.  If one such mistake does not get you to demand a condom from your sexual partners, the cost of that carelessness can be paid by those who consider this a core human right.  If the pro-choice crowd cannot pay for a few hundred thousand airline tickets and hotel rooms for a night every year, we will find out serious they are about a woman's right to choose.

I expect California will create a state-funded program of scholarships.   I do recall when I lived in the Bay Area, leftist whining that 3rd trimester and even 2nd trimester abortions were getting difficult because some hospitals would not do them (those are not trivial clinic procedures) because they could not find nurses willing to participate.   Heck, California might make refusing to do abortions into a crime.  You know because "choice" is what matters.

Roe v. Wade (1973) and Historical Error

 Roe v. Wade (1973):

It perhaps is not generally appreciated that the restrictive criminal abortion laws in effect in a majority of States today are of relatively recent vintage. Those laws, generally proscribing abortion or its attempt at any time during pregnancy except when necessary to preserve the pregnant woman's life, are not of ancient or even of common-law origin. Instead, they derive from statutory changes effected, for the most part, in the latter half of the 19th century.

I did not ever question that claim.  If true, a case might be made that the 14th Amendment's adoption included protection against laws not in general use in 1868.  A pro-choice relative told me that a recent article in the Atlantic claimed that Mississippi's abortion law was adopted in reaction to slave women aborting their babies.

At first glance, this is not an absurd idea; slaveholders believed that their slaves were aborting their babies or causing infant deaths misrepresented as stillbirths.  That overwork, unsanitary conditions, or poor nutrition (the latter two of which afflicted many white women at the time as well) might be causing the loss of their property, likely did not occur to the slaveholders.

So I started digging.  Mississippi's 1857 abortion law:

The 1839 digest of laws:

"Quick" means the fetus is moving, typically 15th to 16th week.  A bit more digging led to Horatio R. Storer, M.D., On Criminal Abortion in America (1860) which lists all the state abortion laws then in effect and that it appears to be all the states, contrary to Roe's claim.

Curiously, Mississippi v. Emma Prude 76 Miss. 543 (Miss. 1898) overruled an indictment under the Mississippi statute for being contrary to the common law.

"You Say You Want a Revolution..."

Legal Insurrection reports that Sen. Sheehan (D-NH) is threatening revolution if the Court overturns Roe v. Wade (1973).

You know it is like the party blaming a riot on President Trump encouraging people who were not even there to go to the Capitol is not aware that revolutions require more than bear spray and stupid hats with buffalo horns.  

They also are imagining this vast army of fierce pro-choicers.  As I have pointed out in the past, even many who call themselves pro-choice support support restrictions at the extreme ends of the spectrum.   A complete overturn will have no effect at all in most of rhe Blue States.  Perhaps California can pay Idaho women who want abortions to fly there.  Or perhaps the mysteries of contraception can be explained to both women and men.  Men might also learn from watching their wild peers get saddled with 18 years of child support payments.

Someone Lost the Plot

An actress posted a nude photo of herself to social media to punish the old white men who passed Alabama's new abortion ban.  She thinks this punishes them.  What would she do to make them happy?