Forty three years ago tomorrow, SCOTUS decided Roe v. Wade, affirming a woman’s right to control her own reproductive choices.  Since then Republicans have been negating that right, as much as they can.  SCOTUS devolved into SCROTUS (Republican Constitutional VD).  The Fascist Five Injustices seem determined to eliminate it, piece by piece.  I’s time to fight back against this Republican War on Women.

Friday marks the 43rd anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion in the United States. At this point, many Americans may assume that it’s easier than ever to access abortion services — but nothing could be further from the truth.

Legal abortion, proven to be both life-saving and essential to the economic security of women and their families, was a critical step in this nation’s journey toward gender equity. Roe was profound not only because it affirmed women’s basic right to health care and well-being through abortion care, but also because it ushered in medical standards and regulations that ensured women were safe during the procedure.

Expanding access to abortion care also bolstered the success of the then-newly established Title X program, which provides family planning services to low-income and uninsured families. Women gained unprecedented access to more doctors, enjoyed insurance coverage for the full range of comprehensive reproductive health services, and saw the ability to manage their fertility for the first time. This had a ripple effect on their ability to pursue educational and economic opportunities. In short, Roe gave many women control of their destinies.

However, history shows us that women have been denied the full benefits of Roe for decades.

Just seven years after the Supreme Court affirmed a woman’s right to abortion, the justices upheld the Hyde Amendment, a budget rider approved annually to this day that prevents women covered by Medicaid from using their insurance to pay for abortion services. Then, in 1992, the Supreme Court held in Planned Parenthood vs. Casey that a state could restrict an abortion procedure as long as it did not pose an undue burden on women seeking the service. Ever since, states have increasingly sought ways to encroach upon a woman’s ability to access abortion care. More than 200 state-level abortion restrictions have been enacted since 2010 — almost the same number as the total number enacted in the 15 previous years.

And this year, the Supreme Court will hear Whole Women’s Health v. Cole, the most significant women’s health case since Casey. Whole Women’s Health, a Texas-based reproductive health clinic, is challenging a Texas state law passed in 2013 that requires abortion providers to meet expensive and unnecessary regulations — including complying with the standards of ambulatory surgical centers and obtaining admitting privileges from local hospitals.

Whole Women’s Health amplifies how far we have strayed as nation from the promise of Roe, and how much remains at stake. The Supreme Court could affirm Roe in a manner that enables the right to abortion and ensures access for the most vulnerable women in Texas. Or the Court could deliver another ruling that further strips away this precious liberty for far too many women…

Inserted from <Think Progress>

To be clear, I consider abortion  as the very last resort, but I recognize that I have no right to impose my own beliefs on others.  Therefore I fully support women’s right to make their own medical choices.

Contact your Senators and Congress critter.  Sign petitions.  Supporting Planned Parenthood is a good way to prevent abortions by providing education and contraception to women.  Oppose abstinence only education in your schools.    Most of all we needs to keep the white House free from infestation by Republicans until SCROTUS becomes SCOTUS again.  Next we need to put Republicans in every level of government from Senator to dawg catcher into the unemployment line.

Every Republican in office is one Republican too many!

VOTE!

After physio, teaching and then taking my student shopping, I finally arrived home at 19:45, exhausted and in pain (my knee).  As a result, there was no post yesterday.  But a good sleep did wonders, and after leaving what felt like 5 kilos on the hair salon floor, I feel great!  Tomorrow is more physio and then back to the keyboard.

Short Takes

Raw Story — On Monday, the nation honored Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr, the slain civil rights leader who changed America by leading a movement to end legislated racism. ut it seems some on the Walk of Fame in Hollywood had a confused idea of who King was and even how campaign endorsements work.

A little dose of humour to keep your engines purring . . . either that or you will cry at the lack of knowledge some people have.  Saints preserve us!

Huffington Post — Kris Kobach's efforts to make voters prove that they're citizens aren't going so well.

A district state judge declared Friday that Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach has overstepped his legal authority by implementing a dual voter registration system.

The federal voter registration form only requires a sworn statement, under penalty of perjury, that citizens who are registering are U.S. citizens. Kobach introduced a requirement that residents of Kansas seeking to vote must produce documentation of citizenship, like a passport or birth certificate. The requirement took effect in 2013. 

In his ruling last week, Judge Franklin Theis wrote, “The Secretary is not empowered to determine or declare the method of registration or create a method of 'partial registration' only.”

When I think of the amount of time and money spent for such frivolous lawsuits, lawsuits that try to disenfranchise people, it annoys me.  The time and money could be put towards education or a multitude of other worthwhile endeavours.  But then, that's not how Republicans work.  The votes to repeal Obamacare is yet another example, this time at the federal level.

CBC — A Quebec City patient has died with the assistance of a doctor, in a Canadian legal first.

A spokeswoman for the authority that oversees health care in the Quebec City region confirmed to CBC News that one patient has received medical aid in dying and a second request is being considered.

Annie Ouellet of the Quebec City Integrated University Health and Social Services Centre would offer no further details on the patient or the circumstances.

It is the first known case since the province's assisted dying law came into effect on Dec. 10, 2015.

From a related CBC article, 

In its Feb. 6, 2015 ruling, the court [Supreme Court of Canada] struck down the ban on physician-assisted dying on the grounds that it violated Canadians' charter rights. Justices then gave the federal and provincial governments 12 months to prepare for the decision to come into effect.

The Conservative government of Stephen Harper did very little in drawing up the federal guidelines for physician assisted dying before he lost the election on 19/10/2015.  Trudeau's new government now has a 4 month extension to get the rules and processes in place.  In the interim, 

The court [Supreme Court of Canada] also ruled that, in fairness to Canadians outside Quebec, those wishing to exercise their right to die with the help of a doctor can apply to a superior court [provincial Supreme Court] in their home province for "relief in accordance with the criteria" set out in the high court's ruling last February. The ruling noted this was the first time the Supreme Court had been asked to grant individual exemptions of this kind.

In my view, this is good news.  We show compassion for animals when they are suffering or terminally ill by euthanising them.  Should people not have that same right?  Some argue that a doctor's oath which says "do no harm" prevents them from assisting.  But I question this since there may well be a greater harm, a greater suffering for the patient if they live.  It is complicated, and there need to be processes in place to prevent abuse.

Huffington Post — As the agreement reached its “implementation day” with the removal of international sanctions following Iran’s compliance with the deal, Netanyahu was quick to credit Israeli efforts for preventing Tehran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. According to the Times of Israel, Netanyahu opened his weekly cabinet meeting by stating, “If it weren’t for our efforts leading the way in enforcing the sanctions on Iran’s nuclear program, Iran would have had a nuclear weapon long ago.”  …

The fact that the international community, and the United States in particular, was willing to engage with Iran has left Netanyahu "licking his wounds," but with Implementation Day, even Netanyahu has made a subtle pivot towards pragmatism. Bibi may still hate the agreement, but his response this past weekend reflects a slight shift from the past as he seeks to leverage the deal for Israel’s political and strategic interests.

Just like Netanyahu build himself and Israel up . . .  when he didn't get his way, he inserted himself into the solution.

My Universe — 

I wish I had the password to the on-line poker site!