Abortion in America (book) and Other Related Issues

And Also: Not quite 2015, but sweeping the Nats put the Mets for the moment in the playoffs as the third wild card. And, the second wild card is close at hand. Don't "believe" but they have a decent shot. The new reliever had a good first appearance. 

Abortion in America: The Origins and Evolution of National Policy,1800-1900 by James Mohr is a well-known history written in the 1970s. 

It is an academic work and is sometimes hard going. Nonetheless, it is fairly approachable for general readers. 

We move to no laws other than the quickening (when movement is felt) in 1800, to early moves in antebellum times to change that rule and the successful change from the late 1850s to the end of the 19th Century.  The discussion includes the development of law and social and professional understandings. One interesting bit is that many churches did not take a large role in the anti-abortion effort. 

The book provides a useful well-rounded discussion of why establishment physicians opposed the traditional “quickening” rule. Some accounts focus on disreputable concerns, including nativism and conservative religious beliefs. But, that is not the whole story. For instance, modern science made quickening a less logical line.

We should apply current realities when determining our law, including a constitutional right to choose. A full understanding of history, however, is helpful. This book provides a useful discussion of part of the story.

===

The book was written in the late 1970s with an afterword discussing Roe v. Wade and the reaction to the ruling.  We are now in a new age. States are again dominant in abortion regulation with multiple efforts to safeguard abortion rights on the ballot. One is the New York ERA amendment.

The text is open-ended, and also covers LGBTQ issues:

1. No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws of this state or any subdivision thereof. No person shall, because of race, color, ethnicity, national origin, age, disability creed, or religion, or sex, including sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, pregnancy, pregnancy outcomes, and reproductive healthcare and autonomy, be subjected to any discrimination in their civil rights by any other person or by any firm, corporation, or institution, or by the state or any agency or subdivision of the state pursuant to law.

2. Nothing in this section shall invalidate or prevent the adoption of any law, regulation, program, or practice that is designed in order to avoid or dismantle discrimination on the basis of a characteristic listed in this section, nor shall any characteristic listed in this section be interpreted to interfere with, limit, or deny the civil rights of any person based upon any other characteristic identified in this section.

A proposed amendment has to pass two consecutive legislative sessions before being put on the ballot. The rule was upheld here. The second section addresses affirmative action-related policies. It also would address concerns that religious organizations would be wrongly implicated. 

The amendment applies to "discrimination by the government." People therefore would have an important vote to submit, even if their districts were strongly red or blue. New York in 2022 was also a significant part of the change of control of the House of Representatives. There are multiple swing districts open to both sides. New York has a lot to vote for in 2024.

==

Meanwhile, we have had a partial leak of the Republican platform, framed by some media as a "softening" of their abortion policy. 

No reason to have the same one after they always caught their roadrunner, the ending of Roe v. Wade. 

We proudly stand for families and Life. We believe that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States guarantees that no person can be denied Life or Liberty without Due Process, and that the States are, therefore, free to pass Laws protecting those Rights. After 51 years, because of us, that power has been given to the States and to a vote of the People. We will oppose Late Term Abortion, while supporting mothers and policies that advance Prenatal Care, access to Birth Control, and IVF (fertility treatments.)

Mary Ziegler, the abortion history expert, notes that the Republicans are purposely being vague here. The language can be sold to both sides, depending on their priors. Nonetheless, the code words are there.

What is the reference to the Fourteenth Amendment and "51 years" (Roe was decided in 1973) reference? The 14A is a clear personhood for prenatal life dog whistle. States do not just have the power over late-term abortions. 

We already have been told that "birth control" does not necessarily include IUDs and birth control pills. Part of Project 2025 is the use of the Comstock Act to broadly criminalize abortion on a federal level. So, this is not merely a federalism issue. 

And, Senate Republicans already refused to vote for IVF protections. One option would be to deny Medicaid coverage to states that do not allow IVF. The net value to those who want IVF coverage of this proposal as compared as a way to further attack Medicaid is not clear.  

Supporting mothers and policies that advance prenatal care is empty drivel. I suppose they support the expansion of Medicaid and paid family leave? The path to true reproductive liberty here is voting blue.