Sunday Shows On Mother's Day Got Kind Of Weird, Considering
As you might imagine.
It's been one hell of a week. After Samuel Alito's medieval opinion to overturn Roe v. Wadeleaked, the country has been dealing with it in various ways. But if the Sunday shows are any indication, we have a lot more worries (and lies) ahead than we thought.
Tate Reeves on CNN's 'State Of The Union' and NBC's 'Meet The Press'
Jake Tapper had on Mississippi GOP Governor Tate Reeves, whose state brought the case that gave Alito and his fellow partisan hacks the chance to outlaw abortion.
Tapper asked Reeves about Mississippi's 2007 trigger law, which would automatically ban abortions in Mississippi if Roe is overturned, except in the case of rape or risk to life of the mother, but not incest. Reeves's answer was not very reassuring:
REEVES: Well, that's going to be the law because, in 2007, the Mississippi legislature passed it [...]
TAPPER: Why is it acceptable to force girls who are victims of incest to carry those child -- children to term?
REEVES: Well, as you know, Jake, over 92 percent of all abortions in America are elective procedures. When you look at the number of those that actually -- involve incest, it's less than one percent. And if we need to have that conversation in the future about potential...
TAPPER: This is your law.
REEVES: ... exceptions in the trigger law, we can certainly do that. But the reality is that, again, that affects less than one percent of all abortions in America on an annual basis.
TAPPER: OK, but that is going to be the law of Mississippi.
But the GOP will not stop just at banning abortion when it comes to restricting reproductive rights and regulating women's bodies. Reeves himself hinted at this over on "Meet The Press" when Chuck Todd, of all people, asked a good follow-up question.
CHUCK TODD: If there is legislation brought to you to ban contraception, would you sign it?\n\nGOV. TATE REEVES: I don't think that's going to happen in Mississippi.\n\nTODD: You're not answering the question.\n\nREEVES: Well, there's so many things that we can talk about.pic.twitter.com/dooWFdPNvW— Aaron Rupar (@Aaron Rupar) 1652026833
Jake Tapper took some time to explain to Tate Reeves why nobody in their right mind would believe Tate Reeves or any other conservative on this subject:
TAPPER: So, Governor, you and I have talked about this before, but Mississippi, as you know, has the highest rate of infant mortality in the United States. You have the highest rate of child poverty in the United States. Your state has no guaranteed maternity leave that's paid. The legislature in Mississippi just rejected extending postpartum Medicaid coverage. Your foster care system is also the subject of a long-running federal lawsuit over its failure to protect children from abuse. [...] You say you want to do more to support mothers and children. But you have been in state government since 2004. You were the state treasurer. Then you were the lieutenant governor. Now you're the governor. Based on the track record of the state of Mississippi, why should any of these girls or moms believe you?
They and we shouldn't.
Asa Hutchinson on ABC's 'This Week'
The GOP governor of Arkanss was asked about a bill he signed last year banning abortion with no exceptions for rape or incest.
His answer was beyond parody:
HUTCHINSON: Well, first of all, again, that's where your heart goes out to them. I've had to deal with those very difficult circumstances of rape and incest as governor. And it's difficult. And so you have to understand that. You have to provide services. [...] But, secondly, I think to your point, the rape and incest exceptions will continue to be a part of the debate. Right now, we do not have rape and incest as exceptions under the Arkansas trigger law, but there's -- I think that will be a part of the debate.
That's a lot of words to substitute in place of "thoughts and prayers." Hutchinson found it so "difficult", he signed the law anyway.
Have a week!
Wonkette is fully funded by readers like you! If you love Wonkette, FUND WONKETTE!
Douthat: Men Can't Succeed Unless Women Are Forced To Have Babies Against Their Will
How can they win if the game isn't rigged in their favor?
There have been a lot of bad takes since a draft of the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade was leaked. Endless, endless bad takes. So it takes a lot to stand out — but Ross Douthat has managed.
On Wednesday, feminist Jill Filipovic tweeted a thread about the ways in which men have benefited from Roe. "There are millions of men whose lives would have been much worse without abortion." she wrote. "Men who wouldn't have found their big loves, wouldn't have their kids, wouldn't have been as successful, wouldn't have taken big risks. Many of them don't think about it. Some don't even know it." She went on to list some of the opportunities that men might not have had if they had been forced to become fathers before they were ready.
This is true. Also it feels important to note that trans men have benefited from Roe in the exact same way that cisgender women have, but yes, cisgender men have benefitted as well.
Today, New York Times columnist Ross Douthat responded to that thread with a set of assertions gleaned directly from your local incel message board.
"Worth noting that in the 50 yrs since Roe," he tweeted, "men have become less likely to find a spouse, less likely father kids or live with the kids they father, and less likely to participate in the workforce."
Worth noting that in the 50 yrs since Roe, men have become less likely to find a spouse, less likely father kids or live with the kids they father, and less likely to participate in the workforce.https://twitter.com/JillFilipovic/status/1521891908309688322\u00a0\u2026— Ross Douthat (@Ross Douthat) 1651840734
If we're speaking factually here, there is nothing to indicate that any of this has anything at all to do with Roe. As many were quick to point out in the responses to his tweet, there are myriad other factors here and correlation is not causation.
Note the decline in men's participation in the labor force actually *slows down* right after Roe, almost levelling off for about 15 years. And then starts dropping again for what is probably a super-complicate bunch of interconnected reasons, because that's how Earth works.pic.twitter.com/YcSqM21FQ8— John Rogers (@John Rogers) 1651849076
That being said, even if it were true that Roe led to a decline in men's participation in the labor force and made it less likely for them to marry and have children, it would be beyond grotesque to point to those things as a knock against it.
The implication here is that men had jobs that were rightfully theirs taken away by women and others assigned female at birth who should have been at home taking care of babies they didn't want to have.
The implication here is that he would prefer that those women be married to men they wouldn't have chosen to marry were it not for reasons of survival. Or for reasons of "shotgun wedding." That he would prefer it be more difficult to leave an abusive situation.
That is, what is the word, evil. It's also insulting to cis men — suggesting that they are giant losers who can't compete in the workforce unless women are taken out of it, they won't have kids without forcing someone to have them against their will, and that they won't get married unless their prospective wife has no other option for survival.
It would be easy to consider this a one-off if this wasn't the same argument frequently used by those seeking to limit the social safety net. Just last week, Marjorie Taylor Greene argued that women will not get married if they can get welfare. Granted, she also argued in that same breath that no one would have any reason to go to work if they were paid a living wage and didn't have to pay out the wazoo for someone to take care of their child while they were at work.
Via Raw Story:
"And they're moving further into those programs of socialism," she said of Democrats. "They want to pay for child care. They want to have a living wage. And these are things that are never going to solve problems actually. No one will have any reason to go to work."
"I am opposed to all of that," the lawmaker continued. "Yes, welfare does have a purpose and a place and there are times the people have really hard times in life and definitely need it. But we need to have a program in place where they get moved off generational welfare."
Greene added: "Why does a woman need to be married if she can be married to the government and keep getting a government check?"
Ah yes, no foundation better to build a marriage on besides "Because otherwise I would starve to death."
Lots of men, of course, have managed to succeed in life without needing to hamstring women in order to make it happen. Shockingly enough, many women have even gotten married, voluntarily, to men, without the looming threat of poverty and a child they can't afford to care for hanging over their head.
Some might even say that a man who can't get a wife outside of those circumstances is not a man who should be married at all and that no one should get married to anyone unless that is what they actually want. One would hope that would be the vast majority of people who are not Ross Douthat, Marjorie Taylor Greene, or an incel planning an upcoming mass murder — but sadly that is not the kind of thing we can count on anymore.
But it is one reason why we really, really, really need to hold on to the right to have a legal abortion. Because while Roe did not actually hinder the ability of cisgender men to participate in the workforce, it would certainly hinder the economic prospects of those who were forced to have a baby against their will or put them in a situation where they have to stay in relationships that are not good for them in order to survive. And that, contrary to what Ross Douthat thinks, would actually be a terrible thing.
Do your Amazon shopping through this link, because reasons.
Wonkette is independent and fully funded by readers like you. Click below to tip us!
Louisiana Fixin' To Redefine Abortion As Murder, Because That's What The Bumper Sticker Says
Can 'Particicutions' be far behind?
With the Supreme Court preparing to eliminate the right to abortion (and far more) by overturning Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Republicans in state legislatures are rushing to pass new laws criminalizing abortion. But just outlawing abortion isn't enough for many in the GOP: They also want to underline their hatred of abortion (and anyone who'd perform or have one) by imposing harsh criminal penalties, not solely for doctors who perform abortions or prescribe medicine to induce an abortion, but also anyone who has an abortion. After all, if abortion is murder, then you need to send the murderers to prison, if not the gallows.
Charging enthusiastically into the race to the bottom, Republicans in Louisiana are advancing a bill that would classify abortion as homicide and grant full constitutional rights to "all unborn children from the moment of fertilization." Louisiana HB 813, called the "Abolition of Abortion in Louisiana Act of 2022," starts with the Book of Genesis and gets worse from there:
Acknowledging the sanctity of innocent human life, created in the image of God, which should be equally protected from fertilization to natural death, the legislature hereby declares that the purpose of this Act is to:
(1) Fully recognize the human personhood of an unborn child at all stages of development prior to birth from the moment of fertilization.
(2) Ensure the right to life and equal protection of the laws to all unborn children from the moment of fertilization by protecting them by the same laws protecting other human beings.
(3) Recognize that the United States Constitution and the laws of the United States are the supreme law of the land.
Yr Dok Zoom is not a lawyer, but I assume the religious language about zygotes being "created in the image of God" wouldn't formally violate separation of church and state because it's only a prefatory flourish.
But wait! Louisiana already has one of those "trigger" laws that's meant to criminalize abortion as soon as Roe is overturned. Why do Republicans want to pass a whole 'nother law banning abortion? The new bill's sponsor, state Rep. Danny McCormick (R-Gilead), explained he introduced it in March because "We can't wait on the Supreme Court." The bill was passed in committee Wednesday and will now go to the full state House for a vote.
McCormick wrote the bill with the help of Rev. Brian Gunter, a Baptist pastor, who explained waiting until a ruling from the Supremes would be intolerable to God Almighty:
"No compromises; no more waiting," Gunter said. "The bloodshed in our land is so great we have a duty ... to protect the least of these among us."
Gunter also explained that the existing "trigger" law simply isn't vengeful enough against abortion providers and anyone seeking an abortion, because it only "says that abortion providers have to pay a $1,000 fine … that is woefully insufficient." He wants jail time, obviously.
While the bill doesn't specify penalties for abortion, it builds a ban on abortion into Louisiana's existing law against "feticide," which enhances prison terms for crimes in which a fetus is killed. The current law includes an exception for abortions, which would be revoked.
First degree feticide under current Louisiana law carries a sentence of 15 years in prison with hard labor, so that ought to be a linguistically satisfying penalty for people who terminate pregnancies. We'll have to see if that's tough enough to satisfy the holy spirit of vengeance, though. Republicans in other states have in the past introduced bills that would institute capital punishment for abortions, so there's little reason they'll refrain from pursuing that even more fervently when Roe is gone.
Just to be absolutely clear that human life begins at conception, the bill defines human life as beginning with "fertilization" and strikes out the older law's definition, so that "'Person' includes a human being from the moment of fertilization and implantation" and "Unborn child" is now defined as "an individual human being from fertilization and implantation until birth."
We're fairly sure the intent there is to criminalize IUDs, which prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. But hey, it also seems to mean that if you have an ectopic pregnancy, you'll just have to let it kill you, because that's an actual person with full constitutional rights in your fallopian tube, and never mind that it can't possibly be carried to term, because it will die when it gets big enough to make you hemorrhage to death. Should have thought about that before you let your body do that.
The bill does include a weird section that, as far as I can tell, would allow people to maybe claim self-defense, but it appears only to apply to cases where someone is forced to perform or to have an abortion at gunpoint:
When any crime, except murder where the victim is not an unborn child, is committed through the compulsion of threats by another of death or great bodily harm, and the offender reasonably believes the person making the threats is present and would immediately carry out the threats if the crime were not committed
That definitely doesn't appear to allow a pregnant person to have an abortion because a fertilized egg threatened to kill them by growing outside the uterus. But we'd definitely watch that movie.
And since the bill is already assuming the right to abortion has been repealed, it even includes a couple of bizarre lines declaring the law exempt from any review by the federal courts, and requiring that any state judge who "purports to enjoin, stay, overrule, or void any provision of this Section shall be subject to impeachment or removal." So there, this law is perfect and you can't even question it in court.
Hell, even after Roe is thrown out, that bit seems a tad unconstitutional, but as I say, I'm just an old-fashioned country doktor of rhetoric, not a lawyer.
[Louisiana HB 813 / Lafayette Daily Advertiser / Reuters / WaPo]
Yr Wonkette is funded entirely by reader donations. If you can, please help us keep this mommyblog going, at least until we're declared criminal accessories to abortion rights.
Why Can't You Pro-Choice Rioters Be Peaceful, And Just Murder Doctors Like The 'Pro-Life' Folks?
Sarah Palin's ghostwriter is back, baby!
Rebecca Mansour, the senior editor-at-large for Breitbart and former ghostwriter for the Palins, tweeted out a fascinating revisionist view of the anti-abortion movement Monday night. She insisted that unlike "the Left," which is always burning down cities and threatening people to get its way, "pro-life" folks are just the most law-abiding, nonviolent people who ever harassed women trying to get mammograms or birth control at Planned Parenthood clinics.
Her four-tweet rhapsody over the absolutely model behavior of the anti-abortion cause closed with a warning that "the Left" will doubtless respond to the expected overturning of Roe v. Wade with "rioting, violence, fear-mongering" and "intimidation tactic[s]," because after all, that's all "the Left" ever does.
Here's Mansour's initial thread, transcribed for easier reading:
The freakout you are witnessing from the left is very instructive. When Roe was handed down 49 years ago, pro-lifers didn’t riot, didn’t call for SCOTUS to be burned down, didn’t threaten the lives of justices, didn’t try to stack the Court.
Pro-lifers (mostly Catholics at first) organized at the grassroots level. They planned an annual peaceful march on Washington. They created crisis pregnancy centers. The got involved in electing politicians.
They passed pro-life legislation. They WORKED WITHIN THE SYSTEM of our Constitutional republic to enact change at the ballot box and in the hearts and minds of their fellow Americans.
If this draft SCOTUS decision holds, then these pro-life Americans (who are now a majority of Americans, I might add) won the right way. And no amount of rioting, violence, fear-mongering, or any other left-wing intimidation tactic can change that.
And yes, Mansour has parts of the history right. The road to eliminating Roe was a decades-long political movement that involved mobilizing rightwing voters, building a political machine that allied the evangelical Right with conservative Catholics — whom Evangelicals had previously considered disloyal threats to America — and creating institutions like the Federalist Society that would educate an army of rightwing lawyers, who could eventually become rightwing federal judges, and here we are.
Of course, Mansour's version misses one or a few hundred things, as others on Twitter went and pointed out.
Strangely, it seems Mansour's initial thread didn't mention a single instance of the decades-long campaign of "pro-life" murder, bombings, and violent threats targeted at clinics, doctors, nurses, and politicians who support abortion rights. Oh, and as for that line about how anti-abortion activists "didn’t threaten the lives of justices," recovering journalist Dan Nguyen called attention to a 1985 Washington Post article whose lede made clear the exact opposite was the case:
Supreme Court Justice Harry A. Blackmun, who has been the target of frequent death threats since he wrote the court's controversial 1973 decision legalizing abortion, said yesterday that a bullet was fired through a window of his Arlington apartment Thursday night. [...]
Both Blackmun and his wife, Dorothy, were at home at the time, but neither was injured by the single shot, which a law enforcement source said showered glass on Dorothy Blackmun as she sat in the living room of the Blackmuns' third-floor apartment. The source said Blackmun had just left the room when the shot was fired.
The article went on to note that Blackmun had "received a particularly graphic death threat" within the prior week, that he "has been the target of numerous threats from antiabortion groups," and that he had "been placed under constant police protection" after receiving death threats from the anti-abortion terrorist group the "Army of God," whose members and admirers committed multiple attacks on clinics and clinic staff, including murders and attempted murders.
One Army of God acolyte was Eric Rudolph, who was convicted in the deadly bombing of the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta as well as the 1998 bombing of a clinic in Birmingham, Alabama, which killed an off-duty cop working security. He also bombed other clinics and a lesbian nightclub to help Jesus fight the New World Order.
Here's a quick rundown of the anti-abortion movement's greatest hits, as it were:
Since Roe was handed down 49 years ago, "pro-lifers" in the US have committed:\n-11 murders\n-26 attempted murders\n-4 kidnappings\n-42 bombings\n-667 bomb threats\n-100 butyric acid attacks\n-189 arsons\n-663 Anthrax /bioterrorism threats\n-25,000+ acts of phone harassment or hate mailhttps://twitter.com/RAMansour/status/1521341524746809345\u00a0\u2026— Jill Filipovic (@Jill Filipovic) 1651594132
Ms. Filipovic also helpfully noted that "pro-lifers" have in fact murdered "more people than there are Supreme Court justices."
And then of course there's the day to day threats and harassment directed at people working at or just walking into clinics, or working for pro-choice groups, and the like.
Not surprisingly, a lot of people took issue with the idea that conservatives didn't "stack the Court," which is only true if you define court-stacking as expanding the number of justices (which, like abortion, isn't mentioned in the Constitution). Making overturning Roe the prime criterion for appointing judges and refusing to hold hearings for a Democratic president's nominee isn't stacking, it's entirely "rule of law" and norm-following, don't you see.
Eventually, a good 13 hours after her initial thread, Mansour posted an "update" that dismissed the decades of violence, because after all, those violent people were No True Pro-Lifers (to say nothing of Scotsmen). Here's her brilliant rebuttal:
Update: Yes, I’m well aware that some violent fringe extremists targeted abortion providers. Pro-life leaders & activists denounced these criminal actions, and the criminals were punished according to the law. In other words, our legal system worked as it’s supposed to.
The assaults on abortion providers did NOT lead to Roe being overturned. The SCOTUS decision (if the draft stands) happened because pro-lifers WORKED WITHIN THE SYSTEM by fostering pro-life jurisprudence, electing politicians, and drafting legislation.
Please ignore the widespread terror campaign, because the actual Supreme Court decision wasn't written by Eric Rudolph, so shut up. And golly, the official leadership of the anti-abortion movement denounced the radical militants, at least when Fox News wasn't inviting them to appear on air. And look, Bill O'Reilly never actually encouraged anyone to go and murder Dr. George Tiller; he just repeatedly called him "Tiller the baby killer" and regularly compared him to Dr. Josef Mengele. It would be very unfair to suggest that anyone in the "pro-life" movement ever egged on the folks who printed up "Wanted" posters for doctors who happened to later end up being murdered in the name of saving the precious babies.
Besides, Mansour added, "Other human rights movements—from the abolition movement to the civil rights movement to the anti-apartheid movement—all had some violent extremists," and that certainly doesn't undermine the good they did, now did it?
Yes, this is where Mansour's also asking us to accept that ending the legal right to abortion won't be, in itself, an act of violence against women, because if ladies don't want to die from an illegal abortion, they would just keep their legs together so they wouldn't have unwanted pregnancies. That's just logic.
In conclusion, please, you radical leftists, try to suppress your violent impulses and work for change the right way, like the pro-life movement always did without fail (please ignore the extremists, they don't count). You can work for change through the ballot box, at least if you can stop burning down cities and killing police long enough to remember to vote. Oh, wait, "the Left" can't be trusted not to cheat, so Republicans will make voting harder, too.
[Rebecca Mansour on Twitter / Mediaite / CNN / WaPo]
Yr Wonkette is funded entirely by reader donations. If you can, please help with a monthly $5 or $10 donation so we can keep this little mommyblog going.