nefarious purpose is.

not saying it is right . . . just reality

Here’s some suggested solutions to get rid of harmful anti-abortion laws:
* Guarantee women’s equality in countries’ constitutions.
* Collect evidence of laws’ harms, find plaintiffs, and challenge laws in court.
* Lobby government against abortion restrictions (meet with legislators, submit briefs).
* Educate media, government, health professionals, and public about the harm and futility of abortion restrictions.
* Challenge the religious basis of anti-abortion laws, and keep church and state separate.
* Change the rhetoric: Abortion is not a “necessary evil.” Abortion is a moral and positive choice that liberates women, saves lives, and protects families.
* Empower women in society by changing public policies.
* Change patriarchal attitudes about women and motherhood through advocacy and education.
* Prioritize childcare and child-rearing as a universal concern, not a “woman’s issue.”

Some of these proposed solutions are obviously very difficult and would take many years. But one has to start somewhere.

To conclude, no country needs any laws against abortion whatsoever. We can trust women to exercise their sensible moral judgment; we can trust doctors to exercise their professional medical judgment, and that’s all we need to regulate the process.

From: http://www.democraticunderground.com/115253

Bolding added because it's the part that you see me and others really trying to focus on here on DU among our alleged allies. It's an important point and one which some alleged allies are getting incredibly hostile.

The best hope we have is to vote these goddamn neanderthal motherfuckers out of office. Red states are notoriously bad for women. It's time we make them blue states. Your rights and bodily autonomy shouldn't depend on your zip code.

Oh, and while we're at it, get rid of the goddamn neanderthal motherfucker congress representatives who happily play along with anti-women lawmaking.

It's up to all of us, folks. We can whine about it or do something. Or whine AND do something. But just DO something!

Every Democrat running for office should support this 100%!

I can offer simple solutions---such as vote the fuckers out.

But reality say's that it will go on this way for a long time---which turns my stomach.

it has been clear for a long time that equal rights for women would mean access to abortion. it was the anti's trump card. but no one, and i mean no one, called them on it.

We ABSOLUTELY need the ERA.

The party's position on abortion has been "it's icky, but I guess we gotta let it happen".

How about instead we go with "why the fuck do you get to control what happens in her body?".

Corporate upper echelons as well as political.

2 x chromosomes doesn't guarantee anything

Electing more female representatives would fix the stated problem. I would like to see the house of representatives mirror the demographics of our country.

Because women make up the majority voting block.

http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/fast_facts/voters/documents/genderdiff.pdf

However, electing more female representatives wouldn't necessarily fix the stated problem. Party affiliation is a much bigger indicator of how someone votes on that issue. It's not even close.

If women made up ~50% of our representatives, that problem would be solved. Getting those female representatives to vote the way we think they should vote would be another problem entirely.

The idea that choosing candidates based on whether or not they were born with a penis doesn't seem to have much merit. The GOP doesn't have a problem finding female candidates that will vote the wrong way on women's issues. A majority of female Republicans is not better than a majority of Democrat males.

The sexes are both part of society. We can't have separate governments.

It is not they are men but that they are right wingers. And other men support women's rights.

Glad you're here! I would guess Harry Reid would be there next to you saying the same thing. Actually, he did. The interview Rachel Maddow did with him recently showed that. That was one point he made. That he found more women coming into the Senate actually made things better. There was more that got done. There was more effort actually to do the actual work, rather than posture and strut and filibuster and bullshit and run out the clock for the sake of petty grievances and getting even and other infantile vengeance scenarios like the men did.

THEY have always presumed to speak for us. And that won't change until we get more of US in there speaking for us. No man can tell me what to do with my body. NONE. Because at its most basic, they can't possibly know or understand. It's just not possible. Not even for my own husband, although he is of the same mindset especially on this issue. Plus, he has a daughter (ours) and understands what SHE faces versus what confronts our son. My husband's a very liberated man. He's also one of those who wonders how the hell our marriage is somehow soured and endangered just because a couple of gays down the street can go get married too. And our marriage will be 40-years-old next year. LOVE that dude of mine! I don't think I could live with somebody who didn't feel that way. I'm the lucky one.

Actually I'm one of those who would go stealth while the above suggestions are implemented. While that's being efforted, to pull the momentum toward enlightenment, I'd be underneath, pushing - by strategic legislating, if you will.
Like sneak language into EVERY bill, the way the bad guys do. Language that would undermine the efforts to take women's physical sovereignty away from us. I'd say attach it like a hidden IED in EVERY piece of legislation introduced by the GOP. EVERY piece. Whether it has to do with reproductive or health issues or not. Time for the Trojan Horse effect.
1) Dismantle, neuter, and ultimately do away with the Hyde Amendment.
2) Legislate the penis and scrotum. Yeah? You want the government shoved up our vaginas? How'd you like it shoved up your dick?
3) Take away our contraceptive coverage? Well, then, there goes YOUR coverage for Viagra and Cialis and whatever else gives you a four-hour hard-on.
4) Insert language, EVERYWHERE AND ANYWHERE POSSIBLE, that nullifies even a whiff of this "conscience clause" crap. THAT bullshit has to be done away with, too. FLATLY, CATEGORICALLY, AND WITH TOTAL FINALITY.
A) Because we're a SECULAR government.
B) And because if your "conscience" doesn't allow you to DO YOUR JOB, then clearly you're in the WRONG job!!!

I'm one of those who believes in "taste of their own medicine. See how they like it." I'd like to see how men would feel if THEIR bodies were suddenly under siege all the time. Maybe it's time they learned about this.

I think we have to fight this on multiple fronts. Good fighting and nasty fighting. Hit 'em everywhere, on all sides, from all directions. Whittle THEIR supports away. Whittle THEIR laws away. Chew through their infrastructure til it's compromised and weakened and rendered toothless. Roe v Wade is ON THE ROPES. We have to fight harder and meaner and more relentlessly.

Face it. The bad guys won't stop in this takeover attempt of theirs. That's why WE CAN'T AFFORD TO!!!!

Let the women control their own bodies is the bottom line. To put it more bluntly, "mind your own fucking body, ya pervert".

nt

that straights make decisions for who gay people can marry.

PUT it in writing....good for YOU.

If women voted even 60% for candidates that support the right to choose, there would not be a problem with this right being under attack. I think people are fooling themselves if they think the problem is all about men, and it does no good to spread divisive crap.

Wendy Davis LOST the women's vote in Texas. In 2013 you had one of the worst anti-female candidates ever for Governor in Virginia, and yet he got over 40% of the women's vote. Brownback got nearly 50% of women voters in Kansas last election.

These male legislatures would not exist if women didn't vote for them. Both sexes are at fault here.

And your examples, like Wendy Davis in Texas, just points out that the real problem is electing these men to tell women what to do with their bodies (and lives).

Also, you really should step out of the "battle of the sexes" meme ( I.e. "Both sexes are at fault here&quot . Why jump to that when it is not at all discussed in the OP?

Really are impenetrable, aren't you?

The numbers for women overall are about 50% pro choice, 41% not. Men 44% Pro Choice, 51% not.
The difference is almost all in the 18-34 age group, older groups the split is nearly even.

I personally think men should have no part in the discussion at all, but even if it was all women doing the discussion it would still have two strong sides involved.

I'm sure there are plenty of Women (capitalized for some reason...but...ok) who have no idea what to do for their bodies and there are plenty of Men who know vey well what is good for Women and their bodies.

I detest the fact that Doctors, male or female, whose expertise is Women's needs are not being allowed to make expert decisions to help Women with any special problems or decisions they may face.

For a while there I thought you finally had stated this in a way that the "it's the same for men" and victim blaming crowd did not really have anything to say.

But, alas, I was too optimistic.

For years I've been saying "when MEN can get pregnant, they can tell me all about it. BUT NOT UNTIL THEN!!!!" Because it's simply NOT their purview! You STAND In THESE SHOES. Then and ONLY THEN you can make all these dictates and pronouncements to me. When you've walked this walk. When what happens to your body can be literally life-threatening (as both my pregnancies turned out to be). It's the woman's job. It's the woman's body. It's the woman's choice. And no other.

This is NOT up for discussion. This is an ABSOLUTE. This is a NON-NEGOTIABLE. It's just that simple.

definition of fetal viability, etc? Imagine that in a modern world.... to just take the entire issue off the table for any debate and regulation, forever.

That would make an incredible amount of sense.

"Deregulating".

Is this supposed to be feminist libertarianism or something? Maybe human rights should be based upon "market forces"?

There is a great deal of very good feminist analysis that may help you to think this through. Please study.

decisions about birth control would be the 50% of the population whose business it is. I never could figure out why this was ever a man's issue.

It makes no sense that young teens have to 'get permission', or that abortion is considered a crime in some states. Just for the sake of discussion, what would happen if all matters relating to birth control were just no longer under any legislation, at all? No laws about abortion, no laws about the morning after pill, or the use of the pill, things like that. What would the impact really be?

On January 28, 2015, Canada celebrated 27 years of reproductive freedom. Since our Supreme Court struck down Canada's abortion law in 1988, our country's experience is proof that laws against abortion are unnecessary. A full generation of Canadians has lived without a law and we are better off because of it.

Canada is the first country in the world to prove that abortion care can be ethically and effectively managed as part of standard healthcare practice, without being controlled by any civil or criminal law. Our success is a role model to the world.

After 25 years with no legal restrictions on abortion whatsoever:
- Doctors and women handle abortion care responsibly.
- Abortion rates are fairly low and have steadily declined since 1997.
- Almost all abortions occur early in pregnancy.
- Maternal deaths and complications from abortion are very low.
- Abortion care is fully funded and integrated into the healthcare system (improving accessibility and safety).
- Further legal precedents have advanced women's equality by affirming an
unrestricted right to abortion.
- Public support for abortion rights has increased.

Responsible abortion care: Since 1988, the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) has successfully managed abortion just as it does for every other medical procedure -- by applying policy and encouraging medical discretion for doctors, subject to a standard code of ethics.

Doctors abide by CMA policy and guidelines, and follow best medical practices based on validated research and clinical protocols. Criminal laws are inappropriate and harmful in medicine because they constrain care and negatively impact the health of patients.


Much more at link: http://www.rabble.ca/columnists/2013/01/benefits-decriminalizing-abortion

Joyce Arthur is the founder and Executive Director of Canada's national pro-choice group, the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada (ARCC), which protects the legal right to abortion on request and works to improve access to quality abortion services.


See more of her work here:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/06/06/343745/-Repeal-All-Abortion-Laws
http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/writing.html

I had no idea! That's very cool.... thanks so much for the info!

Those crazy Canucks score another one!

We could learn so much from Canadian healthcare system, which I had the pleasure of using during my short stint there.

VOTE............

bit of difference?

It's amazing it's against their morals to do something they can't possible do in the first place. Rather convenient when pushing their morals onto other people.

I was shocked how many women thought the Hobby Lobby verdict was great.

Of course, I live in a state that also thought Joni Ernst was the best choice so...

White conservative straight old fucks (men) are losing relevance in society and they know it, and they are desperate to hang onto it. Since they are in positions of power this is how they use that power. So VOTE THEM OUT. Whether you get a man or a woman in office isn't as important as getting someone who stands up for women's autonomy. Full stop. Demand that your candidates tell you where they stand, and then vote accordingly.