Roe Versus Women

Hello, everyone. I woke up angry and scared, which are two emotions I should not be feeling because of a leaked Supreme Court majority-opinion draft. 

Wait...this is a knitting blog. Stand by.

My good friend Allie Pleiter has published almost sixty titles for both Harlequin and Berkley, and her latest Riverbank Knitting Mystery series includes a knitting pattern inspired by a passage in the book. Her most recent title features a pattern I designed for her; I made a two-washcloth set inspired by the sister story in the book. Here is where you can buy the book:

Amazon.com: Knit or Dye Trying (A Riverbank Knitting Mystery): 9780593201800: Pleiter, Allie: Books

And here is where you can just buy the knitting pattern, if you prefer:

Ravelry: Sisters Washcloths pattern by Amy Kaspar

All proceeds from the knitting pattern go to AHIHA: Stan Mikita Hockey School for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, a charity near and dear to my heart.

Okay...back to why I fired this up again. Politico reported on a leaked draft of a majority opinion which would overturn Roe v Wade.

Frankly, I do not care if you think abortion is murder. I do not care if you think life begins at conception. I don't even care if you think abortion should be allowed for absolutely any reason up to the point of birth. 

What I care about is that your opinion is not a doctor's opinion for his or her patient, and someone's privacy is being legislated.

I do not think abortion should be used as birth control. That said, how would I know if someone was doing that, since I have no right to know why someone walks into her doctor's office? At that point - at the point where a woman drives to her doctor's office and walks in the door - my opinion does not matter. A doctor may determine with his patient that an abortion as birth control is the right decision for that patient. I am not a doctor.

If I take my son to the pediatrician, it is nobody's business. For any reason. Including vaccines. Yes, public health should be legislated (I am looking at you, pandemic), but it is nobody's business when and how I get my kid innoculated from measles and whooping cough. I just have to do it so kids don't die 

If Roe v Wade gets overturned, I will not be able to do any of the following without the entire American public thinking it is their business:  get a mammogram, complain about hot sweats, get a vaginal ultrasound to verify my IUD is in the correct spot, discuss menstrual pain, inquire about a lump in my breast, inquire about a lump on my thyroid, inquire about a lump on my labia, complain of abdominal pain, ask about why I am gaining weight, or find out what can be done about my moodiness.

With the rise of extremist conservativism, I have distanced myself from the Republican party. I still believe in better management of money and more responsibility from each citizen, but I can no longer support a party that spent a generation and a half gaslighting people into believing the American Dream is not based in white supremacy. And in this case, for lack of a better term, male supremacy.

Let's take out the privacy piece for a second. There are two facts that have been proven, both by sociologists and by medical anthropologists who study what is done in other countries: restricting abortion kills women, and expanding women's health care saves almost three bucks for every dollar spent. I would think that, in a world where almost an extra million people in this country have died from a pandemic and the service industry is short-staffed because of it, protecting half of the population from more death would be a good idea. I also thought Republicans liked to manage money better than their leftist-counterparts. Well, when Colorado offered free birth control, their abortion rate plummeted by 80%. IUDs, if you are keeping score, are a bit less expensive than an average of ten doctor visits, a two-day hospital stay, a lactation specialist, an epidural, and the eighteen years of formula, food, clothes, school events, and housing that follow it.

Back to privacy. Because as you will recall, Roe v Wade was a 7-2 decision regarding the 14th Amendment, the clause of due process, and privacy. Please go to the comments and tell me the number of occasions you go to the doctor where it is everybody's business. It should also be noted that this decision was sent down at a time where women were being reported in the newspaper as "Mrs. (husband's name)," and not "Mrs. (woman's name)." I am not much of a "this is a slippery slope" person, but who is to say that this will not lead to the Supreme Court thinking it is okay that vigilantes are looking under bathroom stalls to ensure trans people are "using the correct bathroom?" 

Ask yourself if due process is different than it was fifty years ago. Roe was based on a married woman who already had two kids. It was not based in what I hear described by the bigoted extremist Republicans I mention earlier. They are picturing a woman of color with three babies on her hip, ratty hair, no job, and just milking the welfare system. They are picturing the "they" to whom they refer, instead of understanding that people who get abortions are...you know...people.

Finally, look at the economic impact. People who like to say that there are so many families who want to adopt do not look at the fact that an unwanted pregnancy turns into a given-up child. Again, many women having abortions are married with other kids. Or they are kids themselves. Or they are single adults. It does not matter who they are, because ultimately, they are not you. But if you are a woman, this decision being overturned will affect you as well.

When Roe v Wade was decided, one parent could sell shoes full time and afford to buy a house and feed his family on that money. Now, two salaries are often not enough to buy a house, feed everyone, or pay all of the bills. With abortion not being an option, it means pregnant women may not be able to afford prenatal care, mental health care, adoption counseling, parenting classes, vitamins, healthier food for the fetus to grow properly, air filters, water filters, food for the other kids in the house, disposable diapers, gasoline, 

So, here comes an unwanted baby from an unwanted pregnancy. This can only go a few ways, so allow me to lay them out for you. 1) Everything will be fine! 2) The family will manage. And by "manage," I mean there will possibly be divorce, the kids will make it to high school graduation, and everyone will need years of therapy to undo all of the stress-management techniques they learned incorrectly. 3) The family will have to rely on the social services Republicans hate, just to manage, and they will not be readily available in the areas where these people live, and everyone's taxes go up in order to pay for these services. 4) (and this is most likely) Long-term, the life-expectancy of both the mother and the child will be shorter, the education system suffers, the healthcare system suffers, and the mental-health system suffers. The only people who win are attorneys and funeral directors.

I would like to live in a world where everyone wins. But, if I have to lower my bar just a bit, I want to live in a world where I can walk into a doctor's office in peace. After all, that is liberty. I want to be able to get an abortion if I were to get pregnant today (I was told yesterday that I have viable follicles), because I will not be having a baby at 47 years old. That is life. My life. I also know that if I were to get pregnant today, and I had no option to get rid of it, I would be pretty much driven to suicidal thoughts. I am not being flippant. I am very, very fortunate to have a good enough job where I could seek help if that ever happened. That is the pursuit of happiness.

Dear Extremist Republicans:  quit pandering to your base, and try to save the life of your fucking wife while you save your own.

Pro-...What, exactly?

Hello, everyone! I am working on a Pete the Cat sweater for my kid, and I can't decide if it actually looks like Pete the Cat. I am forging ahead, and then I think I will adjust the next size up if I don't like it.

The phrase "pro-choice" was trending on twitter this morning, because pastor Raphael Warnock (who is running for one of two senate seats in Georgia) said he was a pro-choice pastor. so I am offering my thoughts.

First and foremost, abortion should not be legislated by a popular vote, since the statistical majority of us in this country are Christian and abortion is a religious belief. It should not be legislated by our current contingent of mostly white men, because they (all due respect) have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to women's bodies, fetuses, or how those two symbiotic creatures are housed together.

It should be legislated by scientists and researchers, and economists. Yes, by people who know how money works.

On that note, judge women having abortions all you want. If you feel okay with referring to "those people" because you know someone who knows someone who uses abortion as birth control, then cool. But I am guessing there is a huge contingent of women in your circle who have distanced themselves from you not because they disagree with your beliefs, but because they had an abortion, it is none of your business why, and you have already preemptively made your stand clear that someone who had an abortion doesn't care about "the sanctity of human life."

In other words, you - a rational, grownup woman - are telling other rational and grownup women that they are shit because they made a medical decision that doesn't affect you. And you don't even know you are telling them that, because they didn't tell you they had an abortion. I mean...why would they?

So, the science piece is easy. The medical detractors, the ones who say abortion is not safe, that a fetus has a heartbeat at 18 days, that a fetus feels pain at four months...they are using their religion to justify their stand on the science. Their views are not accurate, not peer-reviewed, and not based on scientific research. Life begins at conception, sure. Tumors grow, fetuses grow, limbs grow, blah blah blah. But if sustainable life began at conception, then abortion would never be an issue. You could give birth at 18 days when you hear a "heartbeat," and that clump of cells would just grow into a person.

Also, life does not start with a heartbeat. You know this, because you have watched every crime and medical drama in the world, and checking for a pulse is the baseline for lifesaving measures. Also, cessation of brain activity is the baseline for stopping these measures (I am generalizing, but you get the idea). So there is no brain at 18 days, but rational, grownup women are convinced that a heartbeat is happening and that the fetus will just come out perfect, inexpensively, and will have a great life because of it.

So, let's look at the money piece. Why should economists be involved? Because you - a rational, grownup woman who is pro-life - don't want "illegals" here because they are taking your jobs and costing you too much in taxes. You don't want to pay reparations to black people because they are asking for something that happened 155 years ago (even though segregation and racism has been legal in your own lifetime...I'm looking at you, Ruby Bridges and Mildred Loving). You don't want your taxes to go up, but actually were alive at a time where someone working at the shoe store on the corner could work from 9:00am to 5:00pm and buy a house on that salary.

So, money is clearly a big deal to you.

Did you know that for every dollar spent on women's health and preventative care/family planning, anywhere from $3 to $20 in benefits is gained and saved from not spending money on unwanted pregnancies and babies?

That is a ton...a ton...of money.

Colorado offered a free IUD program for lower-income individuals and birth control at point-of-sale pharmacy instead of only with a prescription. Their abortion rate plummeted; they have had 10.9 abortions per 1,000 women in the state in the most recent years data is available. Georgia, which has almost twice the population, is at 14.1 per 1,000 with all of their restrictions. That is over three more abortions per thousand women, and with the number of restrictions in Georgia, how many of them do you think are causing people to go into debt and cause poverty? Well, here are the restrictions to get an abortion in Georgia:

• A patient must receive state-directed counseling that includes information designed to discourage the patient from having an abortion, and then wait 24 hours before the procedure is provided.
• Health plans offered in the state’s health exchange under the Affordable Care Act can only cover abortion in cases of life endangerment or severely compromised physical health.
• Abortion is covered in insurance policies for public employees only in cases of life endangerment.
• The parent of a minor must be notified before an abortion is provided.
• Public funding is available for abortion only in cases of life endangerment, rape or incest.
• An abortion may be performed at 20 or more weeks postfertilization (22 weeks after the last menstrual period) only cases of life endangerment, severely compromised physical health or lethal fetal anomaly. This law is based on the assertion, which is inconsistent with scientific evidence and has been rejected by the medical community, that a fetus can feel pain at that point in pregnancy.

Do you think, perhaps, that it may be costing Georgia more money in medical costs (both privately- and publicly funded), more money in public aid with the extra mouth to feed, more money in public housing, more money in subsidized daycare and health insurance, than Colorado?

I mean...we are talking about the difference between the cost of birth control and the cost of raising a child. 

The bottom line is that everyone who is religiously pro-life should be legislatively pro-choice. Quit trying to figure out why women are having abortions. Just know that if you listen to the science, and you listen to the money, and pray for the lost souls of the unborn to whatever god you pray to (I won't even bother asking you to pray for the mother...you are beyond that), then you can actually call yourself "pro-life."