patrick.net

In this long-ago essay, I warned that while I was pro-choice, I also recognized that the death of a fetus is a real death, and that an abortion always represents a loss. I warned that we as feminists risked becoming increasingly hard-hearted and soulless if we continued to embrace a discourse in which a fetus was merely “a clump of cells”, and if we persisted in pretending that abortion was spiritually meaningless, and that a second- or even third trimester abortions were nothing more bloody or devastating than “personal choices”.

I also warned that such mechanistic, amoral language and such increasingly monstrous policies would eventually also create a certain losing political scenario. I warned that this posture and these policies would eventually lose us the reasonable middle: the majority of the country that supports abortion rights in the first trimester but that withdraws its support progressively as pregnancies progress.

I don’t mean always to be Cassandra. It is a drag. But nota bene, that is exactly what has come about in this past week.

Today, woman — a woman — posted to me on Gettr: “I have always been on [board] with 1st trimester abortions. But when they started pushing for late terms abortions I could no longer go along with that. So if I am forced to choose full term abortions or no abortions, I am going to side with no abortions. The left just had to keep pushing and that is where I draw the line. I am hoping that we can come together and dial back the insanity.”

https://nitter.net/Evie_Magazine/status/1540561018174291968#m

@Evie_Magazine
Jun 25
Planned Parenthood was started as The Negro Project. Its founder was a racist who wanted to exterminate the black population. This is a well-documented, historical fact.

I had not heard this before.

It's something everyone should be pointing out to liberals, if only to see the frantic cognitive dissonance.

After World War I, Sanger increasingly appealed to the societal need to limit births by those least able to afford children. The affluent and educated already limited their child-bearing, while the poor and uneducated lacked access to contraception and information about birth control.[114] Here she found an area of overlap with eugenicists.[114] She believed that they both sought to "assist the race toward the elimination of the unfit." She distinguished herself from other eugenicists, by writing "eugenists [sic] imply or insist that a woman's first duty is to the state; we contend that her duty to herself is her duty to the state. We maintain that a woman possessing an adequate knowledge of her reproductive functions is the best judge of the time and conditions under which her child should be brought into the world. We further maintain that it is her right, regardless of all other considerations, to determine whether she shall bear children or not, and how many children she shall bear if she chooses to become a mother."[115] Sanger was a proponent of negative eugenics, which aimed to improve human hereditary traits through social intervention by reducing the reproduction of those who were considered unfit.[7]

Sanger's view of eugenics was influenced by Havelock Ellis and other British eugenicists,[116] including H.G. Wells, with whom she formed a close, lasting friendship.[117] She did not speak specifically to the idea of race or ethnicity being determining factors and "although Sanger articulated birth control in terms of racial betterment and, like most old-stock Americans, supported restricted immigration, she always defined fitness in individual rather than racial terms."[118][23]: 195–6  Instead, she stressed limiting the number of births to live within one's economic ability to raise and support healthy children. This would lead to a betterment of society and the human race.[119] Sanger's view put her at odds with leading American eugenicists, such as Charles Davenport, who took a racist view of inherited traits. In A History of the Birth Control Movement in America, Engelman also noted that "Sanger quite effortlessly looked the other way when others spouted racist speech. She had no reservations about relying on flawed and overtly racist works to serve her own propaganda needs."[120]

In "The Morality of Birth Control", a 1921 speech, she divided society into three groups: the "educated and informed" class that regulated the size of their families, the "intelligent and responsible" who desired to control their families in spite of lacking the means or the knowledge, and the "irresponsible and reckless people" whose religious scruples "prevent their exercising control over their numbers". Sanger concludes, "There is no doubt in the minds of all thinking people that the procreation of this group should be stopped."[121]

Sanger's eugenics policies included an exclusionary immigration policy, free access to birth control methods, and full family planning autonomy for the able-minded, as well as compulsory segregation or sterilization for the "profoundly retarded".[122][123] Sanger wrote, "we [do not] believe that the community could or should send to the lethal chamber the defective progeny resulting from irresponsible and unintelligent breeding."[124] In The Pivot of Civilization she criticized certain charity organizations for providing free obstetric and immediate post-birth care to indigent women without also providing information about birth control nor any assistance in raising or educating the children.[125] By such charities, she wrote, "The poor woman is taught how to have her seventh child, when what she wants to know is how to avoid bringing into the world her eighth."

In personal correspondence she expressed her sadness about the aggressive and lethal Nazi eugenics program, and donated to the American Council Against Nazi Propaganda.[123]

Sanger believed that self-determining motherhood was the only unshakable foundation for racial betterment.[126] Initially she advocated that the responsibility for birth control should remain with able-minded individual parents rather than the state.[127] Later, she proposed that "Permits for parenthood shall be issued upon application by city, county, or state authorities to married couples," but added that the requirement should be implemented by state advocacy and reward for complying, not enforced by punishing anyone for violating it.[128]

She was supported by one of the most racist authors in America in the 1920s, the Klansman[129][130] Lothrop Stoddard, who was a founding member of the Board of Directors of Sanger's American Birth Control League.[131][132][133] Chesler comments:

Margaret Sanger was never herself a racist, but she lived in a profoundly bigoted society, and her failure to repudiate prejudice—especially when it was manifest among proponents of her cause—has haunted her ever since.[23]: 15 

Depends. Literally yes, but the 14th amendment was interpreted

Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I'm wondering if the timing of RVW is simply to distract the masses and explain the drastic decline in the birth rate due to the jab.

Anyone else think the left would lose their shit worse if gay marriage was revoked vs revoking roe?

Hircus says

Anyone else think the left would lose their shit worse if gay marriage was revoked vs revoking roe?

What would they do?

Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer will retire tomorrow

http://redstatewatcher.com/article.asp?id=206460

Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer will retire tomorrow

“Where does an attitude like that come from?” he asked. “Well, as it turns out, that attitude comes from the same place the Democratic Party now gets all of its attitudes, directly from corporate America. Corporate America wants you childless.”

Recalling a brief history of labor over the last century where for a spell corporations supported family life through their policies, Carlson explained that at some point this all changed, and workers often had to form unions to ensure they were given wages adequate to support their families.

Because of this, “labor costs soared. So corporate America, in response to this, developed a new model: hire single women,” Carlson observed.

This has happened in many places “including in the traditionally male banking sector [where] young women now make up the majority of new employees and you can see why they do. They work hard, they’re reliable [and] they tend to be loyal to the companies they work for,” the television host explained.

“The one downside to hiring young women is they can get pregnant [and] if you’re running the H.R. department at Citibank, that is the last thing you want. Children make your health care plan more expensive. Worse than that, they tend to compete with an employee’s attention. Responding to after work emails seems less pressing to most new moms than putting their own kids to bed,” Carlson said.

“That’s a huge problem for big companies, so they have every incentive to prevent their workers from having children,” he explained.

“‘Give us the best years of your life and in exchange we’ll pay you what’s effectively a subsistence wage in whatever overpriced urban hellscape we’re based in and then take from you the one thing that might give your existence meaning and joy in middle age, which is having children. That’s the deal we’re offering’” Carlson mocked.

“‘Give us the best years of your life and in exchange we’ll pay you what’s effectively a subsistence wage in whatever overpriced urban hellscape we’re based in and then take from you the one thing that might give your existence meaning and joy in middle age, which is having children. That’s the deal we’re offering’” Carlson mocked.

Sadly I started a long work week so I didn't get to enjoy.

HOES MAD!!!

Must watch Watson:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMooGEw6vTc

US abortion numbers have risen slightly since Roe was overturned, study finds
Summary by CTV News

Abortion was slightly more common across the U.S. in the first three months of this year than it was before the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and cleared the way for states to implement bans, a report released Wednesday found.

https://ground.news/article/us-abortion-numbers-have-risen-slightly-since-roe-was-overturned-study-finds_ebe4bc

US abortion numbers have risen slightly since Roe was overturned, study finds
Summary by CTV News

Abortion was slightly more common across the U.S. in the first three months of this year than it was before the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and cleared the way for states to implement bans, a report released Wednesday found.

Oh, so those numbers went UP and not down? I thought Dems said that abortion was no longer available.