My reproductive years are over now. I am grateful that I was able to make my choices...as hard as they were. A year ago, I wrote about them. https://substack.com/notes/post/p-53478367
That is such a powerful photo and such a brave thing for you to share such a personal and wrenching story. I started out typing here that if you had told me when my daughter was born 18 years ago that she'd go off to college with less reproductive freedom and access to healthcare than I had when I left for college in 1988 I wouldn't have believed you. But that's actually not true. As much of a shock as it was when Roe was overturned, it wasn't a surprise. The politicization of women's reproductive healthcare is a direct result of the Republican party's intentional, cynical gambit to capture the conservative evangelical vote. It has made us less safe, less healthy, and less able care for our daughters. I had a miscarriage that required a D&C to resolve in 2003. It was performed safely with skill and compassion, but in another time and place things might have been different. I'm scared for my daughter and her friends as they go out into a world where jaded politicians can influence their access to medical care. I'm trying not to be discouraged but rather channel my outrage to where it can do the most good. Posts like this help. Thank you.
Your post touched me deeply. Like the photo for you, your words drew up a time from the past and the empathy I dearly needed in my early twenties. From here to there, me to you...feeling.
Thank you! This is beautiful. I am planning to post this to Linkedin:
My daughter will start kindergarten in September and turns 5 in August. Recently, when I asked her what she wanted to be when she grew up, she replied “Just a mom”. 😭 I spent 3 years trying to get her here. It was very hard - 3 miscarriages, two round of IVF, and an anonymous donor egg. I was 43. After realizing the tremendous amount of grief I have and honestly a huge resentment towards the architectural profession, I am taking a break to spend time with her, really spend time with her. To all the hard working people at MAC, I am honored to know you ❤️ For all of you struggling with fertility, give yourself a hot minute to grieve. Bluey is her favorite show. Chilli, I understand. Resolve.org
I'm so sorry to hear this Amber. I wasn't aware you'd suffered a miscarriage. I did as well, with my first pregnancy. One thing about your mom's and my generation, it was always the woman's fault for rape, unless the man killed her of course. Then it was rape and murder, but otherwise, it was the woman who "allowed" it to happen, and that's what I believed, as incredible as it sounds now. That's how I was raised. Rape itself was not considered violent. With how terrorized I was the next three years living with him, I would beg to differ, but no one then would listen. Because his rape got me pregnant, I was then married to my rapist, with him threatened with prosecution for having sex with an under-age girl. I later lost that child in a miscarriage, but we were married and married I would stay, until I finally began to grow up and found the courage to leave him. I'm glad now that we call rape what it is, but I'm afraid quite a few young women in the south would still be treated as I was, a wayward young girl who, somehow, 'asked' for it. Keep fighting sister!
Looking at this picture today, one year since the U.S. Supreme Court stripped us of the constitutional right to abortion.
First of all, there has never been a Constitutional Right to an Abortion. It was never brought up in the US congress, voted on, passed, and then signed into law by the President. It wasn't ratified by the States and made part of the constitution.
What happened was, a woman in Texas was denied the right, by state law, to an abortion, and some law firm took it up to the appeals courts, and then to the Supreme Court, who, in an act of Judicial Tyranny created a Federal Statute out of nothing.
Sorry Ma'am, but a constitutional right wasn't revoked, a Judicial mistake was rectified.
If you want a law that every state has to follow, it has to be done right.
If one is put through congress and it is passed into law and ratified into the constitution, then most people will shut up. But until then, as it should, Abortions are state's rights issues.
Sir, It’s not true that a federal law needs to be passed and signed to give women the right to abortion. Amendments 9, 10, 14 spell it out plentifully, if one includes women as “persons” entitled to life and Liberty that no State can infringe. Of course, we can disagree about whether women are persons. The current Court says we are not, except on April 15 and the first Tuesday in November - though one party is trying to take that, too.
The Ninth Amendment states: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
I don't see anything about Abortion in that amendment. It's perfectly neutral on the subject.
The Tenth states: Tenth Amendment Rights Reserved to the States and the People
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Like I said since there is no Federal Law about abortion, that falls to the States to set jurisprudence. If your state decides to limit abortion, then you have the right to talk to your legislature and try to fix it.
Again, no mention of abortion at all.
The Fourteenth Amendment: 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.
Now, unless you consider being pregnant akin to being a slave or servitude, which it's not, then I don't see anything that pertains to abortion in this one either.
I do see the phrase Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due cause. In this case, that could be extended to the child growing in the womb. Aren't they a person? Don't they deserve to be protected and guaranteed life, liberty, and happiness?
The US Constitution was silent on Abortion because the Founders never imagined a world where women willingly wanted to kill their own children.
As I said earlier, Abortion is a state's rights issue, not a federal issue. I also believe that it's not up to the government to pay for an abortion either.
I will grant you this. Should you need to have an abortion because the inception was by force (rape), it was by incest, or bearing the child would kill the mother, or if the child would be born with deformities that would prevent the child from surviving, then I have no problem with it.
I would, however, want the procedure to be done in a hospital or an outpatient surgical center so that if there were complications, the woman's life could be saved.
I don't believe in abortions for convenience's sake.
Oh, and by the way, I'm not denying that women are persons. Women are very important to humanity because women are the bearers of life. Without women, the species would die out. I'm not the one saying that Transwomen are women, or that men in dresses can participate on women's teams and take scholarships that are for women.
I support Article 9 and believe that women should have their sports teams, their bathrooms, changing rooms, and safe spaces and that men do not belong in them.
I just keep being told that I don't have any say in it, since I am neither a woman nor a trans person.
What I can't believe is that feminists support the idea that men can become women.
It seems to me that women are trying to phase themselves out of existence, which would be a shame.
Trust me, I'm on your side. I just don't like hearing about botched abortions or how the PPA leaves women to die, and how they kill babies is barbaric.
Mr. Weiss, please provide documentation for claims about the Founder's views on abortion and their silence on this subject meaning they were against it. I've seen none. Please also explain why the views of men from the 18th century, with the limitations of it's medical knowledge, should dictate what procedures are allowed today .
The Constitution is also silent in identifying a fetus as a person. Therefore, you are enumerating rights, above those of a person who is defined as such by the Constitution, and giving a fetus protection that the Constitution does not clearly delineate to it. This is a woman's decision, clear and simple. It's like a vasectomy, another reproductive health procedure not explicitly protected by the constitution, being a man's decision. Should men need to hopscotch and cool their testicles on a return flight from a "safe vasectomy" state because their own outlaws it?
If you don't want to hear about botched abortions, don't seek out or listen to those accounts. Your views, my views or anyone else's, should have no bearing on any reproductive care decision a woman makes for herself. If you are on Tara's side, you would keep state governments out of interfering with her medical choices. I say this as a heterosexual male who doesn't want any government, state or federal, telling me what reproductive healthcare choices I can and cannot make either.
That's what I was trying to say. The Constitution doesn't say a single thing about abortion. Hence, there is no Constitutional argument for or against abortion.
It is the pro-abortion side that claims that the Constitution condones a Constitutional right to abortion.
I merely said that the Supreme Court fixed a mistake that a previous supreme court made when it created a federal "right" for abortion. (The Supreme court can not craft laws, that's up to the congress, according to the Constitution.)
I then, unsuccessfully, tried to explain how to get a federal amendment passed into law.
As far as abortions are concerned, I'm against them, with only three exceptions. (rape, incest, and congenital defects.) If a woman wants an abortion, I'm not going to stop her. I just want it done in a sanitary environment, where the doctor can keep her alive, should he fuck up the procedure. (Something that PPA is notorious for not doing.)
I also don't think my taxes should be used to pay for someone else's problem. Since most abortions are for convenience's sake, I don't think I should have to pay for the woman's lack of foresight.
If the United States Congress had settled down 70 years ago and crafted a law, this could have been prevented.
After all, they did sit down and craft a 7000-page Affordable healthcare bill that was neither affordable nor about healthcare.
I grasp your point but it creates an inherently labyrinthine process to ensure everyone gets the healthcare they need throughout the nation.
Many of the healthcare procedures we receive today are not enshrined in the Constitution and it is its silence that ensures that no one interferes in their delivery nationwide. By introducing an interpretation of the Constitution so narrow that only what is enumerated in it can be ensured to be delivered, it now makes it so that a national law, with an expansive list of procedures, medications and treatments, is necessary to guarantee the delivery of healthcare regardless of the state a citizen is seeking it at the time.
Would such a law need to be updated annually and passed with a 2/3 House and filibuster-proof Senate as new procedures were introduced and perfected? Which medical body or bodies would be consulted to construct it? Is this a more efficient means to deliver healthcare than allowing doctors and patients to develop customized strategies for the patient without government interference?
As for abortions being the result of a woman's lack of foresight, or convenience, I disagree with this assertion. Pregnancies happen in spite of condom use, strict adherence to the pill and use of other birth control methods. Women also don't have the ability to forecast when they'll become pregnant from a rape. I also don't buy the image of a horde of "loose women", fornicating indiscriminately and then looking to fit an abortion in before their nail appointment. I've known women who have gotten abortions and the cavalier attitude you describe is not what I observed. They were serious, thoughtful, somber and did not see their decision for convenience sake. As for objection to your taxes being used for abortions, I objected to the Iraq War but my taxes still went towards that, and it was VASTLY more expensive than abortion.
No women were forced or harassed into getting abortions against their will. Before the so-called "pro-life" people got involved, women were allowed abortions in safe, sanitary environments nationwide and the access to obtain those was unimpeded. The SCOTUS decision reversed that and will likely usher in the very conditions you say you you don't want to see.
You make some thoughtful points. Let's start with "without government interference?" I'm all for this. Keeping the government out of it gets rid of the taxation question.
But, can we agree that any medical procedure should be carried out in a sanitary environment such as a hospital or outpatient surgical center so that if something is botched, the doctor can do everything in his power to save the woman's life?
Can we also agree that a board-certified OB/GYN should carry out the procedure?
As I said before, I have no objection to an abortion in cases of Rape, Incest, and genetic defects that would make the child's life impossible. If the case were compelling enough, I'd even consider it for other reasons.
I'd be happier if the Federal Government would butt out of every other thing that they think only they can solve.
As for the Iraq War, I was against that too, as well as the invasion of Afghanistan. After all, 9 of the 19 terrorists were Saudi Citizens.
I'm also against the Ukraine conflict since it doesn't impact us at all. Russia asked that we not put weapons and soldiers on their border and asked that Ukraine not be admitted to NATO. But, our government being stupid as always, decided to piss off the Russians.
In 2008, I had 2 miscarriages.
I was an Army Officer at the time.
If Tommy Tuberville gets his way...Officers like me would just simply have died.
My DnC and subsequent care saved my life and allowed me to have 3 kids
Tommy Tuberville would rather me be dead.
I’m so sorry. Thank you for sharing this.
My reproductive years are over now. I am grateful that I was able to make my choices...as hard as they were. A year ago, I wrote about them. https://substack.com/notes/post/p-53478367
First of all, my heart goes out to you for what you experienced.
Second, please know that you and all women have an ally in me.
Love you
I'm so sorry for what you've gone through. I've had 2 miscarriages and feel all of this completely.
That is such a powerful photo and such a brave thing for you to share such a personal and wrenching story. I started out typing here that if you had told me when my daughter was born 18 years ago that she'd go off to college with less reproductive freedom and access to healthcare than I had when I left for college in 1988 I wouldn't have believed you. But that's actually not true. As much of a shock as it was when Roe was overturned, it wasn't a surprise. The politicization of women's reproductive healthcare is a direct result of the Republican party's intentional, cynical gambit to capture the conservative evangelical vote. It has made us less safe, less healthy, and less able care for our daughters. I had a miscarriage that required a D&C to resolve in 2003. It was performed safely with skill and compassion, but in another time and place things might have been different. I'm scared for my daughter and her friends as they go out into a world where jaded politicians can influence their access to medical care. I'm trying not to be discouraged but rather channel my outrage to where it can do the most good. Posts like this help. Thank you.
Your post touched me deeply. Like the photo for you, your words drew up a time from the past and the empathy I dearly needed in my early twenties. From here to there, me to you...feeling.
Thank you! This is beautiful. I am planning to post this to Linkedin:
My daughter will start kindergarten in September and turns 5 in August. Recently, when I asked her what she wanted to be when she grew up, she replied “Just a mom”. 😭 I spent 3 years trying to get her here. It was very hard - 3 miscarriages, two round of IVF, and an anonymous donor egg. I was 43. After realizing the tremendous amount of grief I have and honestly a huge resentment towards the architectural profession, I am taking a break to spend time with her, really spend time with her. To all the hard working people at MAC, I am honored to know you ❤️ For all of you struggling with fertility, give yourself a hot minute to grieve. Bluey is her favorite show. Chilli, I understand. Resolve.org
https://wellingtonmom.com/2023/05/23/fan-theory-about-bluey-confirmed-why-it-matters-that-chilli-heeler-had-a-miscarriage/#:~:text=He%20said%20yes%3A%20“'The,take%20care%20of%20her%20children.
Wow. Such a powerful picture and story.
Thank you for sharing. <3
Thank you for sharing your photograph
and heart-wrenching story of survival.
My heart breaks when I learn the stories of the families who have suffered since the fall of Roe.
Your writing depicts precisely how grave the stakes are now.
I'm so sorry to hear this Amber. I wasn't aware you'd suffered a miscarriage. I did as well, with my first pregnancy. One thing about your mom's and my generation, it was always the woman's fault for rape, unless the man killed her of course. Then it was rape and murder, but otherwise, it was the woman who "allowed" it to happen, and that's what I believed, as incredible as it sounds now. That's how I was raised. Rape itself was not considered violent. With how terrorized I was the next three years living with him, I would beg to differ, but no one then would listen. Because his rape got me pregnant, I was then married to my rapist, with him threatened with prosecution for having sex with an under-age girl. I later lost that child in a miscarriage, but we were married and married I would stay, until I finally began to grow up and found the courage to leave him. I'm glad now that we call rape what it is, but I'm afraid quite a few young women in the south would still be treated as I was, a wayward young girl who, somehow, 'asked' for it. Keep fighting sister!
Lizz Winstead's Abortion Access Front!
Looking at this picture today, one year since the U.S. Supreme Court stripped us of the constitutional right to abortion.
First of all, there has never been a Constitutional Right to an Abortion. It was never brought up in the US congress, voted on, passed, and then signed into law by the President. It wasn't ratified by the States and made part of the constitution.
What happened was, a woman in Texas was denied the right, by state law, to an abortion, and some law firm took it up to the appeals courts, and then to the Supreme Court, who, in an act of Judicial Tyranny created a Federal Statute out of nothing.
Sorry Ma'am, but a constitutional right wasn't revoked, a Judicial mistake was rectified.
If you want a law that every state has to follow, it has to be done right.
If one is put through congress and it is passed into law and ratified into the constitution, then most people will shut up. But until then, as it should, Abortions are state's rights issues.
Sir, It’s not true that a federal law needs to be passed and signed to give women the right to abortion. Amendments 9, 10, 14 spell it out plentifully, if one includes women as “persons” entitled to life and Liberty that no State can infringe. Of course, we can disagree about whether women are persons. The current Court says we are not, except on April 15 and the first Tuesday in November - though one party is trying to take that, too.
The Ninth Amendment states: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
I don't see anything about Abortion in that amendment. It's perfectly neutral on the subject.
The Tenth states: Tenth Amendment Rights Reserved to the States and the People
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Like I said since there is no Federal Law about abortion, that falls to the States to set jurisprudence. If your state decides to limit abortion, then you have the right to talk to your legislature and try to fix it.
Again, no mention of abortion at all.
The Fourteenth Amendment: 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.
Now, unless you consider being pregnant akin to being a slave or servitude, which it's not, then I don't see anything that pertains to abortion in this one either.
I do see the phrase Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due cause. In this case, that could be extended to the child growing in the womb. Aren't they a person? Don't they deserve to be protected and guaranteed life, liberty, and happiness?
The US Constitution was silent on Abortion because the Founders never imagined a world where women willingly wanted to kill their own children.
As I said earlier, Abortion is a state's rights issue, not a federal issue. I also believe that it's not up to the government to pay for an abortion either.
I will grant you this. Should you need to have an abortion because the inception was by force (rape), it was by incest, or bearing the child would kill the mother, or if the child would be born with deformities that would prevent the child from surviving, then I have no problem with it.
I would, however, want the procedure to be done in a hospital or an outpatient surgical center so that if there were complications, the woman's life could be saved.
I don't believe in abortions for convenience's sake.
Oh, and by the way, I'm not denying that women are persons. Women are very important to humanity because women are the bearers of life. Without women, the species would die out. I'm not the one saying that Transwomen are women, or that men in dresses can participate on women's teams and take scholarships that are for women.
I support Article 9 and believe that women should have their sports teams, their bathrooms, changing rooms, and safe spaces and that men do not belong in them.
I just keep being told that I don't have any say in it, since I am neither a woman nor a trans person.
What I can't believe is that feminists support the idea that men can become women.
It seems to me that women are trying to phase themselves out of existence, which would be a shame.
Trust me, I'm on your side. I just don't like hearing about botched abortions or how the PPA leaves women to die, and how they kill babies is barbaric.
Mr. Weiss, please provide documentation for claims about the Founder's views on abortion and their silence on this subject meaning they were against it. I've seen none. Please also explain why the views of men from the 18th century, with the limitations of it's medical knowledge, should dictate what procedures are allowed today .
The Constitution is also silent in identifying a fetus as a person. Therefore, you are enumerating rights, above those of a person who is defined as such by the Constitution, and giving a fetus protection that the Constitution does not clearly delineate to it. This is a woman's decision, clear and simple. It's like a vasectomy, another reproductive health procedure not explicitly protected by the constitution, being a man's decision. Should men need to hopscotch and cool their testicles on a return flight from a "safe vasectomy" state because their own outlaws it?
If you don't want to hear about botched abortions, don't seek out or listen to those accounts. Your views, my views or anyone else's, should have no bearing on any reproductive care decision a woman makes for herself. If you are on Tara's side, you would keep state governments out of interfering with her medical choices. I say this as a heterosexual male who doesn't want any government, state or federal, telling me what reproductive healthcare choices I can and cannot make either.
That's what I was trying to say. The Constitution doesn't say a single thing about abortion. Hence, there is no Constitutional argument for or against abortion.
It is the pro-abortion side that claims that the Constitution condones a Constitutional right to abortion.
I merely said that the Supreme Court fixed a mistake that a previous supreme court made when it created a federal "right" for abortion. (The Supreme court can not craft laws, that's up to the congress, according to the Constitution.)
I then, unsuccessfully, tried to explain how to get a federal amendment passed into law.
As far as abortions are concerned, I'm against them, with only three exceptions. (rape, incest, and congenital defects.) If a woman wants an abortion, I'm not going to stop her. I just want it done in a sanitary environment, where the doctor can keep her alive, should he fuck up the procedure. (Something that PPA is notorious for not doing.)
I also don't think my taxes should be used to pay for someone else's problem. Since most abortions are for convenience's sake, I don't think I should have to pay for the woman's lack of foresight.
If the United States Congress had settled down 70 years ago and crafted a law, this could have been prevented.
After all, they did sit down and craft a 7000-page Affordable healthcare bill that was neither affordable nor about healthcare.
I grasp your point but it creates an inherently labyrinthine process to ensure everyone gets the healthcare they need throughout the nation.
Many of the healthcare procedures we receive today are not enshrined in the Constitution and it is its silence that ensures that no one interferes in their delivery nationwide. By introducing an interpretation of the Constitution so narrow that only what is enumerated in it can be ensured to be delivered, it now makes it so that a national law, with an expansive list of procedures, medications and treatments, is necessary to guarantee the delivery of healthcare regardless of the state a citizen is seeking it at the time.
Would such a law need to be updated annually and passed with a 2/3 House and filibuster-proof Senate as new procedures were introduced and perfected? Which medical body or bodies would be consulted to construct it? Is this a more efficient means to deliver healthcare than allowing doctors and patients to develop customized strategies for the patient without government interference?
As for abortions being the result of a woman's lack of foresight, or convenience, I disagree with this assertion. Pregnancies happen in spite of condom use, strict adherence to the pill and use of other birth control methods. Women also don't have the ability to forecast when they'll become pregnant from a rape. I also don't buy the image of a horde of "loose women", fornicating indiscriminately and then looking to fit an abortion in before their nail appointment. I've known women who have gotten abortions and the cavalier attitude you describe is not what I observed. They were serious, thoughtful, somber and did not see their decision for convenience sake. As for objection to your taxes being used for abortions, I objected to the Iraq War but my taxes still went towards that, and it was VASTLY more expensive than abortion.
No women were forced or harassed into getting abortions against their will. Before the so-called "pro-life" people got involved, women were allowed abortions in safe, sanitary environments nationwide and the access to obtain those was unimpeded. The SCOTUS decision reversed that and will likely usher in the very conditions you say you you don't want to see.
You make some thoughtful points. Let's start with "without government interference?" I'm all for this. Keeping the government out of it gets rid of the taxation question.
But, can we agree that any medical procedure should be carried out in a sanitary environment such as a hospital or outpatient surgical center so that if something is botched, the doctor can do everything in his power to save the woman's life?
Can we also agree that a board-certified OB/GYN should carry out the procedure?
As I said before, I have no objection to an abortion in cases of Rape, Incest, and genetic defects that would make the child's life impossible. If the case were compelling enough, I'd even consider it for other reasons.
I'd be happier if the Federal Government would butt out of every other thing that they think only they can solve.
As for the Iraq War, I was against that too, as well as the invasion of Afghanistan. After all, 9 of the 19 terrorists were Saudi Citizens.
I'm also against the Ukraine conflict since it doesn't impact us at all. Russia asked that we not put weapons and soldiers on their border and asked that Ukraine not be admitted to NATO. But, our government being stupid as always, decided to piss off the Russians.