468 Comments

It seems important to know that an embryo is not a fetus. An embryo exists from the time of fertilization to 11th week of pregnancy (which is the 9th week after fertilization). At that point, it is defined as a fetus. What these judges have decided to call a child is not even a fetus, it is an embryo.

(And a fetus is not a child until it can survive independently of the womb.) The absurdity of this decision is gobsmacking.

Expand full comment

And if I was a betting woman, I'd bet a big pile that these same legislators spirit their daughters out of the state if their unmarried daughters wind up pregnant, especially if the daddy is not a white man.

Expand full comment

I resisted this idea for a long time, but we must expand the Supreme Court. Of course this must be done under a Democratic president and with a Democratic Senate. I dearly hope we will all vote Blue in November.

Expand full comment

These ludicrous buffoons need to be stopped—as if women were cattle to be impregnated and forced to give birth because their God says so (and I don’t know where it is said). Is this a patriarchal backlash against women who seem to be “threatening” the boys’ club mentality?

Expand full comment

Thank you Joyce. "Congress shall make NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion," [emphasis, mine] These are the first words of the first Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. Per Article VI, section 2, "The Constitution and the laws of the United States.....shall be the supreme law of the land; and Judges in EVERY State shall be bound thereby" [again emphasis is mine] The Constitution nowhere says except for Alabama, or except for the extremely devout to their personal religion.. The second phrase of the first Amendment: "or prohibiting the free expression thereof" does not extinguish the first phrase. YOU MAY NOT ESTABLISH YOUR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS AS THE LAW OF THE LAND. If I were a citizen of Alabama I would be picketing that Supreme Court, emailing each justice every day with the threat of impeachment if they do not defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States as per their oath of office. Our founding fathers were adamant that we not face the kind of religious persecution exhibited in the European countries from which they or their previous generations had fled. Yes, some of those people did have religion. but just as many did not. Like me they respected a person's right to their own religious beliefs, but they did not extend that right to enforcing those beliefs on others. It's past time for lessoning this conduct to all States and all Legislators ad members of the Judiciary.

Expand full comment

“Human life cannot be wrongfully destroyed without incurring the wrath of a holy God, who views the destruction of His image as an affront to Himself." This quote from one of the concurring judges highlights how this far-right religious ideology conflicts with the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of freedom of religion, which should protect the right of women to invoke their own religious belief that life does not begin until the baby is born.

Expand full comment

I hate when women lump all men together.

I am personally fed up to the max with white males forcing their primitive religious views on all of us. Christianity has become detached from any Christian intellectual tradition. The narcissistic "personal relationship with Jesus" has decoupled religion from religious expertise. And so instead of the Gospels, modern bubba Christianity is about nationalism and authoritarianism. Dominance of a self-righteous minority ala the Puritans that founded New England and populated it by schism and exile. By the time of the Founders we see them (like Madison) recoiling from such an idea.

Women have the bodies being fought over, but millions of men who are fathers, brothers, husbands, friends and lovers are in full agreement with the right to body autonomy. It's not just women on the defensive here. Men do care greatly.

Expand full comment

Just wondering, do state sponsored executions incur the wrath of God as much as the destruction of a zygote?

Expand full comment

Tommy Tuberville is a single issue wonk.

And that issue is "fuck the rights of anyone who so much has ever considered what it might like to be a woman."

How soon can he be voted out?

Expand full comment

We can see for ourselves that, in practice, being “pro-life” means "Let the women suffer, let the women die" — even if they deny it, it’s what is happening and will keep happening until it is fixed. Voting out all the Republicans would be a good start.

I know it’s hard to believe that anyone who knows the consequences would still take the actions we see anti-abortion folks taking. We don’t want to believe they are willing to harm pregnant women and girls. We give them the benefit of the doubt and keep saying legislators and judges don’t know, but they do know. For example, Joyce said there was an amicus brief filed with the AL SC about IVF issues. The justices knew. THEY. DON’T. CARE.

The state legislators also know the abortion restrictions they enact will harm, and could kill, women because they have been informed by medical experts. The legislators are ignoring the experts (and the stories we all hear) because (insert nonscientific but sincerely held belief here). They’re willing to let women suffer and die. THEY. DON’T. CARE.

If they cared they would have fixed the laws and stopped agitating for national bans and more restrictions.

Until the Republicans come to their senses, I see only one choice: vote for Democrats who whole heartedly support women’s reproductive rights.

Abortion on demand and without apology. We trust women to raise children. We can be trusted to decide when, and if, we have children. The legislators and certain justices have shown us they cannot be trusted to protect women.

Expand full comment

I will die never understanding why a man has any right to decide a medical decision by a female.

Expand full comment

"Can women safely vote for any Republican?" No, they can't. Apparently, Mike Pence's son was born via IVF. Heather Cox Richardson had a great essay this evening on some of the history behind the First Amendment and the previous attempts by some to add Christian wording into the Constitution. It's interesting that as soon as their so-called Christian principles end up with a result they don't want, they're willing to to manipulate the language.

Expand full comment

Talibama sounds right. I never realized how backwards the south really is until I started paying attention to politics.

Expand full comment

Tubby Tommy, we do NOT need more kids. There are too many people on the planet!

Expand full comment

I'm so sorry for the girls, women and parents in Alabama where these (bleeps) have made these laws. But it's appalling that we're dealing with this issue in ANY state.

Religious zealots who say life begins at conception are conveniently avoiding all of the Biblical references to life beginning with the first breath, and ending with the last breath.

But the fact that they feel entitled to speak for "God" means they'll have a lot more things they'll want to rule on, and none of them will be based on the rule of law or healthcare for women. Or common sense, for that matter.

Expand full comment

What about embryos that have a defect but are not allowed to progress to being frozen? How will those decisions and procedures be impacted. Will women be required to have embryos with defects implanted and then be forced to carry them to term and deliver them?? There are multiple other possibilities that will need to be addressed in the scenario that court decision has opened the doors to. Will decisions be criminalized for only the woman?

Expand full comment