13 Comments

Speaking as a family doc I find these law review articles to be both medically and legally sophisticated, clear and detailed. They tease apart nuances and details which define a basic human condition -pregnancy - and its complications, intended or not. It is very sad that neither the pro-life advocates nor the courts have any empathy for this basic human condition, its frequent complications, and the women who tragically suffer through them.

Expand full comment

Does 1 in 25 women get sent to the hospital after taking an abortion pill?

Expand full comment

The otherwise excellent law review article on "Abortion Pills" observes that "Mifepristone, the only drug approved by the FDA to end a pregnancy, is more expensive and difficult to obtain than misoprostol.(28) This is largely due to the agency’s imposition of strict controls on the drug.(29)" However, the review neglects mention that the FDA's strict controls were never instituted and maintained for scientific or clinical reasons, but to accommodate religious and political opposition to its very approval.

Expand full comment

Unless the Biden Administration and Democrats push back more vehemently against these Supreme Court decisions we are in for a lot worse. Simply acknowledging that nothing more can be done because the Court has ruled isn't enough. Our Constitution is supposed to create a system of checks and balances, not court rule. Unless Biden questions the legitimacy of *this* Court, insists that women will die because of its decisions and that the majority stand completely outside American public opinion, it's going to continue. Non-compliance should be threatened as one option.

Expand full comment

Help! Get me out of this evil alternative reality. I spent the last 50 years thinking women had won big with Roe v. Wade. Guess their motto is “we were only kidding, you dumb b..ches.”

Ok, I’ll put my armor back on (even if it’s too snug) and see if I can I can swing my metaphorical sword. I’m 70 but I’m still in the fight for Equal Rights.

Expand full comment

This stuff is what made me realize that "seeing red" is a legitimate thing that can happen if you're angry enough.

Expand full comment

If Republicans win the election there will most likely be an executive order on day one enforcing Comstock to ban abortion nationwide from fertilization, as well as methods of birth control these groups consider abortifacients. Unless one really believes, that when Republicans won't tell these groups no when it's causing them to lose elections, that they're going to tell them no after they've won one?

Also Ohio Republicans are still fighting reproductive rights tooth and nail, and there's no guarantee of the outcome, regardless of the amendment. Republicans still control the courts and the executive in that state.

Absolutely everyone should fight with every legal strategy they have, but the other side doesn't care how many people die. I am so incredibly tired of anyone being even the least bit surprised by that.

Expand full comment

According to Jessica Valenti 81% of the public supports keeping government out of abortion. Just you and your doctor.

Expand full comment

Peer reviewed medical literature demonstrates this is a total fabrication.“Hundreds of medical studies and vast amounts of data have confirmed its safety and efficacy as part of this two-drug regimen,” the American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists, the American Medical Assn., and other medical societies wrote in a friend-of-the court brief filed on behalf of the FDA and Danco. The brief noted that “major adverse events (i.e. that would require ER care) occur in less than 0.32% of patients” (that is about 1 in about 300) and that “the risk of death is almost non-existent.” Why would the AMA and OB-Gyns want to spread information that would put thousands of women at risk?

Expand full comment

I'm interested in the justices' reactions after Dobbs during oral argument.

Breyer is on Colbert tonight. He talks about Dobbs in his new book.

Expand full comment
author

I was very confused by this first sentence at first. You just mean, now, post-Dobbs? I’m still not sure what you mean by it though … their “reactions after Dobbs”?

Expand full comment

"You just mean, now, post-Dobbs?"

The discussion and related articles discussed how contraceptive and abortion cases being decided now are part of an interconnected effort that threatens reproductive liberty. Dobbs was a central landmark in this effort.

These cases are big moments for the justices to address these issues. Tomorrow is the first big abortion related case SCOTUS will hear since Dobbs. Or after Dobbs. Post Dobbs.

I was wondering how the justices will play it. Will the liberals seem particularly angry? Will the justices make a concerted effort to try to limit the breadth of the case? Will Alito or Thomas hint they aim for bigger game? etc. Sorry. Didn't know I was being too opaque.

Expand full comment

Yes, I agree with Sharon

Fullen. I had thought we

women were safe. That my

daughter, granddaughters

and future greats were safe

with freedom of choice and

our/their rights that we

fought long and hard

for. Here we are again.

Expand full comment