Abortion Information


Mark Humphrey/AP<br /> Nashville District Attorney Glenn Funk speaks during a hearing for death row inmate Abu-Ali Abdur'Rahman Wednesday, Aug. 28, 2019, in Nashville, Tenn. Abdur'Rahman, who was convicted of murder and is scheduled to be executed next April, claims that prosecutors' racially motivated dismissal of potential black jurors resulted in an unfair trial. A court order presented by Funk at the hearing will convert Abdur'Rahman's death sentence to a sentence of life in prison if approved by the judge. (AP Photo/Mark Humphrey)

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (WTVF/AP) — Davidson County District Attorney Glenn Funk said he won’t enforce Tennessee’s abortion law that requires women undergoing drug-induced abortions to be informed that the procedure can be reversed.

According to federal court documents filed on Wednesday, Funk called the law unconstitutional and said, “the criminal law must not be used by the State to exercise control over a woman’s body.”

“As long as I am the elected District Attorney for the 20th Judicial District, I will not prosecute any woman who chooses to have a medical procedure to terminate a pregnancy or any medical doctor who performs this procedure at the request of their patient. Further, I will not prosecute or sanction an abortion provider who states, verbally and/or in writing disagreement with the disclosures required by the Legislature which are subject to this lawsuit,” Funk said in the filing.

The state’s abortion law – one of the nation’s most restrictive – focuses mainly on banning abortion once a fetal heartbeat is detected, which is about six weeks into pregnancy, before many women know they’re pregnant.

However, also tucked in the 38-page law is a requirement that doctors must inform women that drug-induced abortions may be halted halfway. Medical groups say the claim isn’t backed up by science and there is little information about the reversal procedure’s safety.

Those who fail to comply with the law, which doesn’t go into effect until Oct. 1, will face a Class E felony, punishable by up to six years in prison.

In August, abortion rights groups sued in effort to prevent that requirement from being implemented. Funk and other district attorneys were named in the suit because they prosecute criminal cases.

Gov. Bill Lee has promised to do “whatever it takes in court” to defend the law.

The group Tennessee Right to Life responded to General Funk’s decision with the following statement:

“We are disappointed that General Funk is failing to uphold his elected duty to prosecute violations of the laws of Tennessee. Women deserve to know every option available to them and, if abortionists are violating the law by not informing their patients of the abortion pill reversal method, then district attorneys across the state should be ready and willing to enforce this law and prosecute those providers. After all, pro-choice should mean getting a choice in the first place.”

Hedy Weinberg, ACLU of Tennessee executive director released the following statement:

“We are pleased that General Funk is exercising his discretion as a prosecutor and declining to prosecute abortion regulations. However, the attorney general, Governor Lee, state legislators and other officials continue to relentlessly attack abortion providers. The bottom line is that this unconstitutional law forces physicians to provide false and misleading information to their patients and it needs to be struck down.”

Helping to cover costs, driving the pregnant person to the appointment, and bringing them food and other comforts should be the minimum a partner offers to someone who chooses or needs an abortion.

Abortions can be an affirming act between two people on the same trajectory, communicating and caring for one another, especially when the partner centers the pregnant person’s experience and needs.
Shutterstock

Tributes from abortion rights advocates are pouring in to honor the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her long career fighting for reproductive rights and autonomy. Notably missing in those tributes have been the voices of cis men whose lives have been undoubtedly made better in part by Ginsburg’s advocacy—and it’s reflective of a larger problem.

Because it’s no secret: When it comes to abortion, the pregnant party worries about their health while the partner responsible for the pregnancy, usually a cis man, seems to be mysteriously absent from the conversation.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, women in their twenties accounted for the majority of abortions from 2007 to 2016. But no such data exists about the partners—mostly cis men—responsible for these terminated pregnancies. (Most doctors, after all, agree it’s impossible to get pregnant without the help of a sperm.)

So, what about the millennial men who have been involved in some of these abortions? They’re not just invisible specters behind the data points assigned to the women and nonbinary and trans people who get abortions. Or, at least, they shouldn’t be.

Still, most of the cis men I spoke with did not want to go on the record about their experiences with abortion.

“I’m embarrassed we were in that situation,” one said. Another said it wasn’t his story to tell. A few want children of their own and were sensitive about their partner having an abortion in the first place.

I spoke to one man who did not want his name shared; we’ll call him Jack. Three of Jack’s partners had abortions between 2012 and 2015. In 2012, Jack was 26 years old.

The first two partners didn’t tell him they were pregnant until after terminating their pregnancies through medication abortions, an early stage option. This isn’t uncommon, according to Jaime Coffino, a clinical psychologist at New York Anxiety Treatment Center and research fellow at New York University.

“Some pregnant women are afraid to tell their partners or other significant people in their life (e.g., family, friends, etc.) about having an abortion,” Coffino said. “Reasons for this include feeling like they are a burden, being scared of negative judgment, or being nervous that they would have to go into detail about their decision.”

Similarly, Dr. Ghazaleh Moayedi, an OB-GYN and abortion provider in Texas (as well as a fellow with Physicians for Reproductive Health), reiterated what should be a given: The decision to get an abortion is not one made lightly.

“When someone chooses to have an abortion or decides they need an abortion,” Moayedi said, it “is a moment in their life where they’re really taking stock of their life. They’re really taking an inventory of who they are, where they are, who they want to be, and where they want to go.”

This may be why relationships might end after an abortion or why the pregnant person might decide not to notify their partner: They don’t think that person can provide adequate support and care.

“It’s often a moment where people might be thinking about the relationships that they’re in [and] the person that they’re with,” Moayedi said. “And if they want to even be with that person or not.”

Coffino agrees, saying, “I’ve had patients who expressed that having an abortion is a very isolating experience. Some patients did not feel comfortable telling their friends or family about the abortion and only had their partner and therapist (me) to rely on for support. In these examples, it is particularly important for their partner to be supportive.”

The form of support varies depending on the needs of the individual. According to Moayedi, “Listening and creating an open space for listening and just hearing a pregnant person is critical for partners.” Just as different people have different ways of communicating, they also have different means of handling trauma—and an abortion can be a trauma for some.

“There are hormone fluctuations that occur both pre- and post-abortion that can affect mood,” Coffino said. “These hormonal shifts can cause sadness, anxiety, and even depression in some patients. There are also patients that experience grief associated with the abortion. It is important for a partner to be patient, communicate gently, and offer support.”

As for Jack and his last partner, he drove her to the clinic and paid for the abortion. Afterward, they got sandwiches and then ended the relationship. It may seem trivial, but Moayedi believes this type of support—helping to cover costs, driving the pregnant person to the appointment, and bringing them food and other comforts—should be the minimum a partner does, even if the future of the relationship isn’t viable.

Abortions don’t always result in the dissolution of a relationship. It can be an affirming act between two people on the same trajectory, communicating and caring for one another, especially when the partner centers the pregnant person’s experience and needs.

Sam, a woman from Brooklyn, New York, who only wanted to be identified by her first name, had an abortion in 2008 at age 21. She had known her partner for a while, but their relationship had just begun a month or two before.

“We were relying heavily on the pull-out method,” Sam said. “He also didn’t pressure me into doing anything—into getting an abortion. He was just like, ‘Whatever you want to do.’”

When it came time for the abortion, Sam opted for a medication abortion, believing it would be less invasive. Her partner stayed with her throughout the process.

“And he was really wonderful,” Sam said. “He took me to Planned Parenthood. Before that, we went to Two Boots pizza, right next door.” Their relationship continued for about six months. Their breakup had nothing to do with the pregnancy; in fact, the two remain friends nearly 13 years later.

“For some people, it really solidif[ies] their relationship,” Moayedi said. “People realize that they do deeply love the person they’re with. And that person is really showing up for them in that moment.”

Source: https://rewirenewsgroup.com/article/2020/09/25/unsure-about-supporting-your-partners-abortion-heres-how-you-can-help/

President Trump and first lady Melania Trump pay their respects to the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg as she lies in repose at the Supreme Court. Cheryl Diaz Meyer for NPR

President Trump was met by shouts of “vote him out” and “honor her wish” as he paid his respects on Thursday to the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Her body is lying in repose for a second day at the Supreme Court.

Trump, wearing a black mask, was silent as he stood next to the flag-draped coffin at the top of the Supreme Court’s steps.

Demonstrators standing across the street from the court booed Trump as he emerged from the building and then began chanting at him to honor Ginsburg’s dying wish that she not be replaced “until a new president is installed.”

https://www.npr.org/sections/death-of-ruth-bader-ginsburg/2020/09/24/916465713/honor-her-wish-protesters-shout-as-trump-pays-respects-to-ginsburg?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_term=nprnews&utm_campaign=politics&fbclid=IwAR3itdgvxnguFSg40arFUz0zHjzFPmM_BU8lNoy7BAhXU6SZnjRyXWJdqT4

As with any other form of health care, the experiences of 20 people who have had medication abortions are unique to each person.

Republican Sen. Ted Cruz, or anyone else for that matter, cannot ignore the stories of those who have had medication abortions.
Greg Nash/Pool/Getty Images

It should come as no surprise that in the midst of an ongoing global pandemic that has killed nearly 200,000 Americans and caused the financial ruin of countless more, Republican senators would continue to attack access to abortion care. It’s even less surprising that they’re hanging their attacks on outright lies.

On September 1, a group of 20 GOP senators, led by Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, signed a letter to the Food and Drug Administration asking the agency to ban medication abortion from public use. In the letter, the senators described Mifeprix—otherwise known as mifepristone, one of two medications used to terminate a pregnancy by blocking the pregnancy hormone progesterone then triggering contractions to expel the pregnancy from the body—as an “imminent hazard to the public health” that “poses a significant threat of danger.”

Studies have shown that medication abortion is not only extremely effective, but undeniably safe. It is certainly much safer than childbirth—in a country with the highest maternal mortality rate of any developed nation, a pregnant person in the United States is 14 times more likely to die in childbirth than due to an abortion complication. And it is certainly far from astonishing that even though the vast majority of Americans support legal access to abortion care—including 55 percent of Republicans and 59 percent of voters who supported Trump in 2016—anti-abortion Republicans are ignoring the will of the people in favor of their tireless pursuit of government-sanctioned forced birth.

Each experience, as with any other form of health care, was unique to the person having it. But they all have a few things in common: The people are thankful they had the ability to have their abortion at home, they knew it was the right decision, and they do not regret their choice to have a medication abortion when they wanted and needed it.

Here are their stories:

Natasha Lynn, 32, Chicago

It was 2017, and I was 28. I had been dating my partner for about half a year at that point. I made an appointment at Planned Parenthood to get an IUD, as I was terrified of what could happen to my reproductive rights as Trump was taking office. At every IUD appointment the nurse will do a pregnancy test as a requirement before the procedure. I don’t think I can express how utterly devastated and shocked I was when the nurse came back saying my test was positive. I immediately burst into tears, and the level of anxiety that came over me was unlike anything I had felt before. I had decided at a young age that I did not want children, and as things got more serious with the person I was dating at the time, he confided that he did not want them either.

I was six weeks along so I had only a short amount of time I could still get the medication abortion. Luckily, I have a very strong support group—my friends and my partner helped me quickly make the necessary appointments and get the funds together for the medication abortion. My mother, who has always been open and told me about the several abortions she has had to have in her life, and aunt drove me to the appointment.

I was given a pill to take in the office, and then an additional prescription to take the next day. I was given a list of precautions and things to watch for, but honestly I felt fine! I ordered pizza and went to see a horror movie with a close friend that evening. The second day I took the second pill, and my partner came over with a heating pad and what he thought would be helpful supplies. He sat with me through it all until I was tucked in to sleep.

Three years later and we are now married and very happily childless.

Phylicia Davis, 34, Nashville, Tennessee

I was 33, and I was five weeks along in my pregnancy. I had just moved to Nashville from the Bahamas because of Hurricane Dorian. I told the guy I was seeing that I was pregnant, and he told me he supported any decision I decided to make. I went online and found different places that offered low-cost to free abortion help. I went to the Hope Clinic [a crisis pregnancy center] first and they gave me a pregnancy test and ultrasound. Sadly they don’t offer abortions but abortion alternatives. So I went to Google again because I remember seeing the name of a place called Carafem. They had positive reviews and excellent customer service.

The appointment-making process was so simple and effortless. I went there on two separate occasions. The first appointment was to take a pregnancy test and discuss any questions and concerns I had about a medical abortion. I was very nervous about the process because I’ve only had a surgical abortion in the past.

The date of the second appointment came, and my anxiety level was sky-high. The guy who got me pregnant was there every step of the way with support. The doctor gave me a pill to take in the office and some pills to take at home. They gave me a care package with pain pills, a heating pad, and various other things. Everything I needed was in the package, including a Carafem journal to document my procedure at home. I left the appointment feeling anxious but calm because I knew this was what’s best at this point in our relationship. He took me home and told me to call if I needed anything.

I took the pills that night around 7; it took about two hours I think for it [to] start. I had to insert them vaginally. I also was in bed during the whole process. I felt some cramps and a little pressure. The pain, for me, was bearable. I went back to my Carafem journal to make sure my process was on track. I was lying in bed and I felt like I leaked through my pad so I went to check. And while checking is when the clots started to pass. It took a few hours for the big pieces to pass, but once they did, the pain was virtually gone.

The next morning, my pregnancy symptoms were virtually gone. I was able to make breakfast and tend to my children normally. My anxiety was gone—I felt confident that I followed through with my decision.

Alexandria, 28, Los Angeles

I was 25 when the rape took place. I still feel weird calling it “rape,” because at the time, I just knew I was very uncomfortable. I was scheduled to go into work at 8 a.m., but I totally thought I was supposed to be in at 5 a.m. Rather than sleep in my car (I thought that was scary because it was still dark), I texted a “good friend” and asked if I could sleep on his couch since he lived a few blocks away.

I was very tired and instantly fell asleep when I hit his couch. I remember falling deep into sleep and then being woken up by someone pulling my pants down. I said stop; I made it clear this wasn’t what I wanted.

It all gets pretty hazy from there. I think subconsciously that was my way of coping—just trying to forget. This friend is someone that I had sex with maybe twice prior to the incident, but both of us gave consent those other times. I think it’s important that I mention this: I had not given any consent to have sex, for him to touch me, for him to take off my clothes, nothing of that nature that day. I remember being so sleepy and pushing his hands away. I am only 5 feet tall—he is 6-foot-3. I was never scared he was going to kill me or anything, but that day I became paralyzed with fear and confusion. I couldn’t wrap my head around a “friend” doing this. It all just happened.

I remember saying, “Just let me know when you’re done.” I remember feeling uncomfortable and being in pain. I don’t know the correct terminology, but my walls were dry, and it felt like the inside of my vagina was being clawed apart.

I didn’t feel like a human, I felt like an object—especially after he came inside me. Again, no consent to do that either. I ran out so quickly and went to work as if nothing had happened. I didn’t want anyone to know or run the risk of someone telling me it’s not rape because we had had sex before. As soon as work was over, I went to buy a knock-off version of Plan B. I took this generic brand seven to nine hours after it happened.

Seven weeks later, I [found] out I was pregnant. By the time I found out, I had already turned 26 and had just been kicked off my parents’ insurance. I was scared that my paperwork that I submitted for new insurance would be denied. Luckily for me, it wasn’t. I went into Planned Parenthood and asked to have an abortion.

Everyone was very polite and made me feel comfortable. The sensitivity the staff had brought me to tears. It was every detail, from explaining the billing, to just walking in to make an appointment and coming back days later to go through with an abortion—everyone was beyond polite and nonjudgmental. The general atmosphere in the room, the nurses calling me mija (a term of endearment in my Mexican culture), the doctor using “English” instead of medical terminology that I probably wouldn’t understand—everything. My parents did not know at the time, so I was alone. I was scared walking in, but the staff took care of me.

I wanted to do a medication abortion because I wanted to be with my loved ones or at least in the comfort of my home. I wanted to be around my parents and feel safe, even if they didn’t know what was going on. I didn’t want to do surgery because I honestly couldn’t think of a lie to cover it up. I was also just terrified.

I had my abortion at home, in my living room with my two best friends. I felt safe. I felt like all the bad shit that happened to me couldn’t reach me. I never underestimate the power of human interactions. Leaving Planned Parenthood, going home to loved ones, I felt untouchable.

Taylor S., 34, St. Louis

I was 30 years old when I had my abortion. I took a pregnancy test at home in November, which came back positive, and scheduled an appointment at Planned Parenthood to confirm the pregnancy and discuss options. I was seven weeks along when I terminated my pregnancy by having a medication abortion. In the state of Missouri, there is the 72-hour mandatory waiting period between when you consent to having an abortion and the procedure.

It wasn’t a walk in the park: lots of cramping and bleeding, just like a really heavy, hard period. Luckily, the pain and anti-nausea meds they prescribed helped a lot. I basically spent the weekend in bed, but towards the end of it, felt fine. I didn’t experience any complications, pretty much went through what I expected to happen—and everything had been explained to me and from what I’d read about what would happen—happened. I feel so grateful to [have] had the option to have the medication abortion.

I think when it was all said and done, I felt a huge amount of relief, but also I think a part of me will always wonder if I did the right thing. I’m like 98 percent sure I did, there’s just that still little pesky 2 percent that wonders what my life would be like if I’d decided to have it. But [I’m] incredibly thankful that I had the choice, and that I made it on my own, without any interference from anyone, which is how it should be.

 

[PHOTO: Pro-choice activists rally for Planned Parenthood]

Michael Thomas/Getty Images

Melissa, 37, Chicago

 

I was 31 at the time, and I was six weeks along when I discovered the pregnancy, seven when I had the abortion. I was in a new relationship with a man I already knew was my person (we are now married!), but we were barely two months into our relationship when I got pregnant. Not only was I unsure at the time that I ever wanted to have kids, but I knew that this early in a new relationship, when I also wasn’t in the most financially secure place, it absolutely was not the right moment.

I was panicked, of course, when I discovered the pregnancy, but I never once wavered on the decision. And my partner’s support and cool, steadying hand was, to me, the first indication that we had the chops to make it through the hard stuff.

So, strangely enough, it ended up being a wonderful early test for us. Because I live in a major city, calling a clinic to schedule the procedure was incredibly easy, and I did not have to wait long to go in. The privilege of that is not lost on me, and neither is the fact that I had access to both the resources to pay for it and a supportive partner to hold my hand through the entire experience.

Michelle, 25, Albuquerque, New Mexico

I remember this time period in my life as clear as day. It was June 2017, and the moment I found out I was pregnant, I was sitting on my restroom bench in complete shock. Why the shock? Because I was on birth control and had taken Plan B. Although I had strived for A-pluses all my life, this plus sign, on this test, was not one I wanted to see. I was 21 years old and in nursing school. This was the absolute worst time to be pregnant, for me at least. I was also in an unstable, toxic, and difficult romantic relationship at the time, and I was scared.

After proving I was pregnant, my abortion was scheduled for July 17, 2017. I was eight weeks along. To this day, I still have the ultrasound photo with my little baby on it. I keep this photo on my nightstand and talk to the baby as if he or she can hear me. This might be creepy, but if you know me as a person, this would all make sense.

I was very impressed with Planned Parenthood—they did everything professionally during my appointment, and one of the most important aspects is [that] not one of the medical staff judged me. Having one of my friends with me also helped. This day was long and the night was even longer because of how much pain I was in, both mentally and physically. Since I had some regret shortly after (which is completely normal, by the way), I didn’t take the pain medication as they prescribed, so I experienced everything natural.

A whole year went by and I experienced a range of emotions. I thought about the baby every day, I thought about if I made the right decision, and I was so angry with [my partner at the time for] not being there for me during the most challenging times of my life. It still hurts me to think about the apology I never received from him, but it has been three years and I am finally able to wish good for him.

I want to say I truly do not regret my decision. I am grateful I had the ability to have an abortion in my own home, with privacy. Medication abortion allows you to feel every emotion in a space of your own and is less invasive than a surgical abortion. I knew this route was right for me, and I am lucky to have had this experience. My abortion has changed me in many ways—it has made me resilient, thankful, and stronger.

Anonymous, 33, New York

I was 25 [and] eight weeks along. I went to Planned Parenthood for care. I took the second pill at home.

The major takeaways I come back to are: The shock of taking a pregnancy test that is actually positive. Being grateful [that] the guy I was with and I were on the same page. [We] both weren’t ready to be parents, [and] both agreed it was ultimately my choice what to do. The amount of time I spent on the phone with my health insurance company gathering info. [It was] a lot of time [and I’m] unsure if this was necessary honestly, because Planned Parenthood offers so much financial support. But I didn’t have the money at the time to carry a heavy medical expense. The coverage was high and in my favor, [but I] can’t remember the percentage. The care I got at Planned Parenthood that day, and every day since, was outstanding: The nurses, doctors, people at the front desk were all extremely patient and informative and respectful. I felt really prepared and informed after I took the first pill there and got home.

I was living in Washington D.C., at the time and the center downtown was a magnet for anti-abortion protesters: You had to go through the gauntlet to get in and out, [and it’s] still one of the strangest experiences I have had. People were touching me and followed me—super intrusive. I had to wait some time to get an appointment, a few weeks I think, and it made me glad that I took action when I did. I was operating under this “hurry up” cloud because I didn’t want to miss the window of time where I still had control over my body.

Things started pretty quickly after taking the second pill. [The] pain lasted for an hour and then started to subside enough that I ended up napping. It hurt for sure, but it was manageable. No lasting or residual pain or discomfort. Bleeding afterward, but they told me that would happen and it was comparable to a medium period bleed.

Anonymous, 33, San Antonio

Last September, I was traveling for work when I realized my period was over a week late. When I returned home to San Antonio, I went straight to [grocery store] HEB and bought a pregnancy test. I tested positive and called my husband. We had been married six weeks, lived in different states because of our work, and had seen each other once since our wedding, which is when I got pregnant. I told him the news, and we promptly agreed that it was my decision, and we both knew that [by] having an abortion I’d be making the best choice for myself, my career, and our family. I was 32, and it was my first pregnancy.

My next call was to Planned Parenthood. I took the first appointment available, which was five days later. When the doctor examined me, they told me that I was six weeks and one day pregnant. I made a follow-up appointment for a medication abortion because I thought it would be less invasive than a surgical one. By Texas law, the doctor was not allowed to make a recommendation, which made me feel like I might be making the wrong choice. The doctor at Planned Parenthood was kind and patient. I’m in my 30s, I donate to Planned Parenthood, and I work in Democratic campaigns, and the entire process was so bizarre, even for me.

By Texas law, the patient is required to view the sonogram. After I agreed to a medication abortion, I was required to listen to a litany of unscientific warnings, some of which only apply to surgical abortion. The doctor did a great job explaining to me what was required by state law versus what was accepted medical information. I understand the politics around reproductive rights, but I cannot imagine how scared and confused I might [have been] if I were younger or had less exposure to the movement for reproductive justice. I had to schedule a second appointment to get the abortion pill. That visit was really quick and easy, and by that time my husband was in town and he went with me.

There were right-to-life protesters outside of the clinic both times, but the building felt very safe and secure. I filled my prescription at the CVS pharmacy near my house. It was a Friday, and I took the first pill then and the second on Saturday. We had breakfast tacos, I took the pill, and we hung out watching movies in bed. After a couple of hours, I felt cramping and started bleeding really heavily.

Leah Handley, Detroit

I found out I was pregnant on December 29, 2019, which was one day after my sister and father’s birthday. We had gone to the DIA [museum] the day before, and I knew something was wrong with my body because I was very nauseous and had extremely tender breasts. I took the pregnancy test the next day at my parents’ house, and it came back positive. I am in a three-year-long committed relationship with my partner, Louie, and we have no children and do not really plan on having them. I immediately called him and told him, and the next sentence out of my mouth was how I was on the Planned Parenthood website to schedule the abortion, as we had discussed we would do if we ever found ourselves in this situation.

Their earliest appointment was January 2, in Ann Arbor, which is about two hours away from my house. We spent New Year’s Eve with our friends, and I carried this secret with me for five days, with only Louie and my sister knowing. When I had my appointment, I found out I was between five and six weeks pregnant. They asked if I wanted to see the ultrasound, and I started to cry and said I didn’t know. I’m very grateful to the nurse at Planned Parenthood because she printed it out for me and put it in a sealed envelope. I have it in my jewelry box now. They also let me know that I had a benign tumor in my uterus that I would not have known about had I not gone there. It cost me about $500 out of pocket because I did not have any insurance at the time, though I don’t think it would have covered it anyway even if I did. Louie and I paid it together.

That day, they gave me the first pill, which ends the pregnancy. I cried harder than I ever have. I told the life inside of me that I was so sorry, and that I loved it so much, and that I would not have been able to give it the life it deserved and that I was doing this out of love. I swallowed the pill and went home. When I woke up the next day, my body knew I was no longer carrying a viable pregnancy. That was hard. Two days later, I drove to my boyfriend’s house and took the second set of pills there. My parents still do not know to this day.

The experience was traumatic. I know that I have a low pain tolerance, but I did not expect the level of pain I had in my wildest nightmares. The Motrin 800 did not work. I began to bleed and cramp about an hour after I inserted the pills vaginally, and was almost immediately in so much pain that I was throwing up and blacking out. I made Louie drive to the nearest urgent care, and it was closed when we got there. He then drove to the next one he found online, with me screaming and writhing in pain in the passenger’s seat.

I entered the urgent care and gave the front desk a pamphlet I was given at Planned Parenthood describing the medication I took, and was ushered back into a room. I was crying and telling the doctor (a young girl, about my age) that I was sorry and to please not judge me and to please just help me. I’m not religious, but this woman had to have been sent by the universe to me. I will be forever grateful for her kindness and her care. I told her I didn’t have insurance, I couldn’t afford anything. I just wanted the pain to stop. She charged me the absolute bare minimum she could, $100, and wrote me a prescription for a higher pain medication. She hugged me. I will never forget that she hugged me and told me that I would be OK. We filled my prescription at a CVS, and I took the pills in the car. The rest of the day is a blur to me of changing pads, fitful sleep, and pain.

But I am grateful that I was able to choose to do this, no matter how much it hurt me physically or emotionally. It was the right decision. I made this choice and went through this experience out of an overwhelming love for the cluster of cells that was inside of me, the cluster of cells I would not be able to provide with the life it deserved.

Kayla Ballenger, 26, Atlanta

I had my medication abortion in 2016, when I was 22 years old and in my last year at the University of North Georgia. I was fortunate enough to find out early on that I was pregnant and knew immediately that I needed to have an abortion. Even though I personally drove a good friend of mine to an abortion clinic in Atlanta when we were in high school, I still had little knowledge about what resources were available for me because growing up in the South, abortion was never an option talked about and is considered murder in my family.

There was a lot of fear put in me through propaganda in scripture and church, and I decided to seek services at Planned Parenthood because I knew they are well-known and knew I could trust them to take care of me. I actually had never even heard of a medication abortion until I called to make an appointment and the receptionist said I could have one if I turned out to be less than nine weeks along in gestation. I chose to go that route because I was scared of surgery and I knew I needed to be discrete between having a full-time school schedule, work, and my roommates having no knowledge that I was pregnant.

Taking the medication was simple, [but] the whole process beforehand was pretty traumatic. I sat for at least four hours in the office waiting while a preacher with a megaphone shouted across the parking lot praying that all of us inside would change our minds about our decisions. I was also forced to watch a video about the dangers of having an abortion, and the ultrasound technician used a condom on the wand when performing the ultrasound, which has made sex difficult for me now because of the mental correlation. It was convenient though, to be able to pass the pregnancy at home where I could curl up in my bed. I was so relieved the next morning because I was able to get up and go to class.

Unfortunately I ended up needing a blood transfusion and a D&C three months later after being told I had an incomplete miscarriage and seeking out help but doctors not taking me seriously until then. But I wouldn’t change anything. I was able to graduate and have a very successful career specializing in geospatial technology.

Robin Marty/Flickr

Marissa, 27, Los Angeles

 

I was 21 years old at the time and had been dating my boyfriend for a few years. I was off birth control because I had tried it before and didn’t like the side effects. I didn’t think I could get pregnant because that’s kind of the mindset of a lot of young girls that get pregnant their first time: “That wouldn’t happen to me.” Unfortunately, I wasn’t so lucky.

I was two weeks late getting my period and told my boyfriend about it. He drove me to Walgreens, where I took a pregnancy test in the bathroom. He waited in the car while I texted him from the bathroom. I sat in the stall waiting for the test to change colors or do anything. The symbol finally popped up, and I’m not sure if I read it wrong or I just didn’t want to believe it. The test looked as if it was blurring between a plus sign and negative sign. I texted him a photo and said maybe it’s wrong and it’s negative. He assured me that it was positive and I was probably pregnant. I felt sick to my stomach.

The following day I made an appointment at Planned Parenthood to get a second test. “You’re pregnant,” the woman told me. This time it was real. I asked her what my options were, and she told me I was lucky that I was early on and “caught it early” so I was able to take a single pill for the abortion. I was relieved that it was that simple.

They gave me the pill and told me it would just feel like a heavy period but [that] I wasn’t allowed to wear tampons like I normally do, pads only. I took the pill and went home and laid down and waited for something to happen. Throughout the following weeks I bled profusely. The lady wasn’t lying—it was a very heavy period. I went back for a checkup after a couple weeks, and they assured me that I was fine and the abortion was a success. They also gave me birth control and condoms.

I was extremely relieved the process was so easy and that the staff at Planned Parenthood made me feel so welcome and not judged or like a terrible person. I had great health insurance under my mother, however I was terrified of going to my regular doctor for fear of her finding out. From then on, I frequented Planned Parenthood for reproductive and preventative services because my mom is incredibly conservative and didn’t even know that I was having sex.

Planned Parenthood provided me everything and all services completely free of charge. I truly do not know what I would have done or where I would be without the access I had to Planned Parenthood and abortion services. At the time, I was living at my mom’s apartment and sharing a room with my sister. My boyfriend was living in a tiny two-bedroom apartment with his parents and three siblings. There was no way that we would have been able to support a child, let alone ourselves, at the time.

Since then, we broke up, I graduated college, found a great job in the field I studied, and moved to Los Angeles and have a wonderful career and lovely new partner. I probably would have had to drop out of college and would definitely not have the career and financial stability I have now. I sometimes reflect on that experience and think, “Wow, I could have a 6-year-old right now, and I would’ve been stuck with that guy forever and living at my mom’s.” I’m so thankful that is not my situation. I’ve now been on birth control for several years and am much more careful.

Melanie Corrales, 21, Oakland, California

I was 19 at the time [and] had just left my hometown for college [for] more opportunities for my future.

I met a guy my first week here at the job I started. He took me to meet his family over Thanksgiving and I had forgotten my birth control and that’s how I got pregnant. I had missed my period in December but was in denial about being pregnant, as I had risked my luck before and had gotten lucky. I went home for Christmas and the first thing my aunt, who pretty much raised me, asked was, “Are you pregnant?” I’m not sure how she knew, but since I still hadn’t gotten my period, I decided to take a pregnancy test and it was an immediate positive.

It was overwhelming because I have huge goals about being a midwife and making sure women of color are receiving proper reproductive care. My partner and I were definitely not in a place to have a child and we were both on the same page about that.

As soon as I found out, I immediately made an appointment online with Planned Parenthood for the day after I returned. My partner drove me and sat with me in the waiting room until it was my turn. I was called in, and my vitals were taken like any regular medical appointment. I never felt any judgement or shame at all throughout my experience. They brought me to my room and someone came and asked me a lot of questions, made sure this is what I wanted, and educated me on the process. They then did an internal ultrasound to see how far along I was and that it was a normal and single pregnancy. I was ten weeks along. She let me keep a picture of the ultrasound, which was special to me because I would’ve loved to have been able to keep the baby, but we were not in a place to care for a child.

After the exam, the nurse practitioner took me to her office and explained the whole procedure to me. I was to take some pills there with her, and in 24 hours, I was to take four more at home. She explained exactly what would happen, that I would feel cramping, maybe experience nausea and vomiting, and then bleeding. She sent me home with instructions with visuals and explained if I experienced anything abnormal, to come back. I paid absolutely nothing. About an hour later I did begin to feel nausea and threw up maybe once or twice, I don’t really remember.

The next day I took the next round of pills in my room with my partner and just stayed in bed. To be 100 percent honest I was prepared for the worst, and it was definitely not that bad. The cramping was like a period, and there was a lot of bleeding, but I was expecting a lot more. I was never a heavy bleeder, so I would classify the bleeding as just a very heavy period.

A few days later, while I was at work, the remains came out just like the nurse practitioner said it would. It literally looked like a huge clot—no face, no eyes, no arms and legs. I bled for, at most, a week. About a week or so later I went back for my follow-up. They made sure everything came out and were very pushy about me leaving there with birth control. At first I didn’t want it, but they were very insistent and I gave in (got the Nexplanon), which I am thankful for because although I had a pleasant experience, it was not something I would want to go through again.

I also want to mention that I am still with my partner and being able to choose what was right for us at that precise moment was such a privilege, and we are forever grateful we had the control of what was going to happen in our lives.

Amanda Kelly, 30, Charlotte, North Carolina

I was 28 years old when the pregnancy test I took was positive. It looked defective, so I peed on two more. I went to the store and bought more tests because the disbelief was that strong. I cried on my bathroom floor for a couple of hours.

I never wanted kids. I’m married, great job, and I was looking to buy a house. In much respect, I was ready as any adult could be, but it’s just not what I wanted. I found the number for an abortion clinic called A Preferred Women’s Health Center of Charlotte to see what my options were and the protocol to take. The pill was cheaper and seemed easier, so I went for it. Only after I had an entire plan did I inform my husband.

The clinic had a counselor call me a few days before the appointment. She provided general information about the abortion and other options I’m sure, but I was sick from my pregnancy and too overwhelmed to really remember the consultation. My appointment was at 9 a.m., but I arrived at 8:30 a.m. in the morning on December 1, 2017. As we drove up, I could see people dressed as old English carolers. I thought they looked so cute, and being unfamiliar with the area, I assumed there was a theater hall nearby. It turned out to be pro-life protesters. They were harmful and ruthless after their coy attempts to persuade didn’t work. Kind women with rainbow umbrellas escorted my husband and me into the building where other women were waiting.

Six of us were sent to a room where we waited for a couple of hours, during which time we began to share the story that brought us here. One was a 45-year-old woman who was done having kids, she was a nurse. Another had found out she was pregnant after being dumped by her ex, and since she already had a daughter she didn’t want to add to her situation. Another was 20 and attended a Catholic school, so she was terrified of them finding out. She was dating an older man who was well established in Charlotte and convinced her having a baby would be throwing [away] her life. Another was also young and in college. She had been dating a boy in secret because her family disapproved of him. She felt too young and wasn’t ready. The last woman had been seeing a man who turned out to have a whole secret family. Needless to say, she wanted to remove herself as much as possible from that drama.

They became my tribe, the only women in the world who understood how I felt. No one in my life could identify with my situation, and here I had five women who became my greatest blessing, my sisters.

I was the first to receive instructions, my abortion pill, and pain medicine—after 24 hours, take the pill, the medicine, and ride it out, basically. I turned to the women before I left. Hardly able to hide my emotion, I thanked them for their compassion and for their presence. Still to this day I think of them and wish nothing but happiness and love for them.

Deseree L., 31, Long Beach, California

My first abortion I was 28 and was finishing up my second year of graduate school. I had been feeling off, not at all like myself for a few weeks but could not place what was going on. My period was late, but I attributed it to being extremely stressed between working full-time, going to school full-time, and thinking about how I will be adding an internship to my already chaotic schedule in the next few months.

I decided on an impromptu solo trip to Portland during the upcoming Memorial Day weekend to get my mind off things. I remember becoming more and more concerned about my ever elusive period throughout the trip, but I had cramps on and off, so I thought it was only a matter of time. On the plane ride back to L.A. I had an epiphany of sorts and became 100 percent certain I was pregnant. My roommate picked me up from the airport and I had her drive me to the nearest Rite-Aid so I could purchase a pregnancy test. As soon as I got home I took the test and got a positive result.

I cried and cried. I cried because I was angry. I do not want children, I had been careful, and I had this ridiculous notion of “this isn’t supposed to happen to me.” I don’t know what made me think I was so special—things happen all the time, and it just so happened that this time it was happening to me. There was no doubt or second guesses about what I would do next: I started seeking out abortion options.

I called the first place that came to mind, Planned Parenthood. I called to make an appointment for the next day, but the only available appointment within 24 hours was in San Diego, which was ridiculously far from me. I opted for the next available appointment in the greater L.A. area, which was in about three to four days. I was so miserable, sick, and anxious while waiting for the day of my appointment.

I called my mom the day before my appointment to let her know what was going on and to applaud her for having three children because I was absolutely miserable. She was supportive and even considered getting on a plane to be here for me, but I told her to stop being dramatic and I would let her know when it was all over.

I went to my appointment alone. I had a vaginal ultrasound done; I was about nine weeks along, which was absolutely insane to me as I had only started to feel weird/off about two weeks prior. They asked me if I wanted to see the ultrasound or get a copy of it; I said no. They were not great with that because I totally saw the monitor from where I was lying. I was still in time to have a medication abortion, so I opted for that option because at the time the thought of a D&C seemed terrifying to me. I’ve taken Plan B before, what was the difference, right? (Disclaimer: It’s very different, y’all!)

After the pregnancy confirmation and discussion of my abortion options, they gave me antibiotics and mifepristone, which I took at the clinic. I was then provided with a prescription for ibuprofen and given a small envelope containing four misoprostol pills, which I was to take 24 hours later by placing them on my gums and allowing them to dissolve. Before I left, I was also given a bunch of informational documents and a follow-up appointment a week later.

To my dismay I found myself in a similar situation a year and a half later. I was a month away from turning 30, I had finished graduate school, and I still did not want children. I still don’t.

This time I realized much sooner and did not panic. I went through my insurance provider and was linked to a local clinic. The second time I was about four weeks along and opted for the medication abortion again. This time the process went much smoother, was a lot less painful, and was over much quicker. At the follow-up appointment for my second abortion I opted for an IUD, since condoms and birth control pills were doing me no favors.

 

[Photo: Person holding glass of water and pill in hand.

Shutterstock

Alli Reyes, 23, Denver

 

When I had my medical abortion I was 19 years old, unemployed, and going to school. I had it at around seven weeks along in the pregnancy. I had gotten pregnant by an emotionally abusive boyfriend that I had finally cut ties with just days earlier. Unfortunately/fortunately for me, I became aware of my pregnancy before even having missed a period as a friend had left a drugstore pregnancy test at my apartment, and never having needed to use one, did it solely for the experience of “peeing on the stick.” Shocked, I immediately went to my local Planned Parenthood to get a real test done, knowing already that if it was true I would plan to get an abortion.

After a month and change of struggling with my abuser attempting to guilt me into keeping [the pregnancy and] holding the money over my head, I eventually relented and told my mother, who was an amazing and nonjudgmental support for me throughout the process. I got everything scheduled/done through Planned Parenthood, and had the actual abortion safely at home.

I have always loved Planned Parenthood for their dedication to providing access to sexual health care to anyone who needs it, but after my experience, I credit them with quite literally saving my life in a way.

I have never felt an ounce of guilt for my decision, aside from the societally induced shame in speaking [about] it openly. I am incredibly grateful to have had the support and resources to have had access to it, and have quite a feisty fire in my heart to support others who share my experience, regardless of the circumstances of their unique situation, as well as anyone who currently finds themselves at that crossroads, and those who will at some point down their timeline. I have so much love and admiration for them all, whoever and wherever they are, because it is one hell of a shared human experience.

Taryn Swopes, 30, El Paso, Texas

The first time, I was 18 when I found out I was seven weeks along. I had just graduated high school and was getting ready to start my undergrad for civil engineering. My boyfriend at the time was getting ready to go off to the Air Force and get stationed who-knows-where. I made the decision not to risk the distraction in achieving my undergrad while doing it alone (it was a young relationship [and I] didn’t know if he would stick around). I went to a local women’s reproductive facility to fill out/pay for it and had to wait the 72 hours to actually receive the pill set, which was nerve-wracking. I was sure I wanted to go through with it, and waiting only made my partner more unsure. I took the pills at my house that weekend and spent the weekend alone.

The second time, I was 23 [and] also seven weeks along and was about to graduate college this time. My longer-term boyfriend, who would become my husband a year later and my ex-husband a year or so after that, took me to the same clinic to get the pill set. Same 72-hour waiting period, but I was older and knew what to expect, so it was just inconvenient more than anything. I had the abortion at my house, alone again, but this time because I was sure I wanted to go through the experience alone. I slept it off and got back to my normal studies by the following Monday.

The experience to get the pills was frustrating because there were protesters outside, and the process requires you go once to apply and pay and then once more to receive the pills. Even though I was confident in my decision, it was uncomfortable to have strangers yell at you. This clinic also took care of other reproductive needs for women, so I can’t imagine how difficult it was for those women to walk into that clinic getting yelled at for something they actually had no relation to.

However, it is so much more private and time-convenient than in a hospital. I was able to have both of mine basically in secret. The actual feeling of the medication abortion was physically uncomfortable. It was the most intense set of cramps I’ve ever had. I thought I would pass out the first time to be honest. However, I would take that pain and privacy over a surgical abortion any day. It allowed me to go through the process privately (for better or worse). It was so helpful when I was younger because I myself didn’t know how I felt about it or how others would perceive my decision.

Looking back and forward, I don’t regret either and am glad I made the best choice for myself in both instances. It brings me comfort to know it is an option available to women who are unsure that they want a family, can’t commit to one at the moment, or simply don’t want that for their life track. Knowing my own personality and habits, I made the best decision for me, and having a clinic in my city that offered medication abortions helped provide me the access to the type of journey I wanted to take personally and for my care.

Anonymous, 29, Pasadena, California

I have had two medication abortions. The first was when I was 24 years old and I was seven weeks pregnant. I had been dating the father for a little under a year and wasn’t sure I was ready to have a child with him. I had a surgical abortion a few years prior and knew that I didn’t want to go through that again. My significant other had taken me to the clinic as he supported me in my choice to terminate the pregnancy. He was not excited that I wanted an abortion, but he was fully supportive of my decision. I took the pill used to terminate the pregnancy at the clinic and returned back to his house afterwards. It was the weekend of the Fourth of July and I had spent the whole day in bed and in pain.

The second time I had a medication abortion was when I was 27, just a year after having my first son. I was not ready for another child, so my significant other and I decided together to have another abortion. This time I was apprehensive of going through with it, as I felt that maybe we could make it work. Mind you, my significant other was the same man I had the previous abortion with and the father to my son. He had been incredibly supportive and understanding of our situation, but he brought up many logical reasons as to why we could not go through with this pregnancy and I agreed. Again, he took me to the nearby clinic and I took the pill there. He brought me back home and I recovered in our own bed.

Ashley Romans, 36, Colorado Springs, Colorado

When I was 34 years old I found out I was pregnant. I had just started medicine for an autoimmune disease I have been dealing with for 14 years. I knew my body could not go through being pregnant again, and I couldn’t care for a baby on top of my two other children. My husband went through our insurance company to find the most affordable option for having an abortion. Our local Planned Parenthood offers both surgical and medical. I was six weeks along by the time I had found out I was pregnant. I would have been 13 weeks by the time I could have made an appointment for a surgical [abortion]. Because they were booked so far out, on top of the tremendous cost difference, l choose a medical abortion instead of surgical.

I am glad I did it that way, though. I was home. My sister was able to come to stay with my kids so my husband could be with me at Planned Parenthood for the appointment to get the first medicine and stay the next couple of days to help keep the kids busy.

I remember being scared because by the time I was able to get that appointment, I was almost ten weeks and I thought I’d end up having to go back in case something went wrong. The Planned Parenthood staff was amazing and gave me so much information and listened to me, so after my nerves calmed down I was glad to be going through the process at home. I was able to think and be comfortable in my own bed. Even though there was a lot of getting up and down to the bathroom, it was OK because I was with my family and able to change clothes or move if I was able. I was glad to be able to be home and go over my choice in my own way. It made me so thankful to be able to choose, even though it meant not adding to my family.

I would choose the same option again. I was able to wait until the kids were in bed to go through the first hours, which were the most painful. I was able to watch whatever I wanted or try to sleep. Once it was over, I felt and still do feel relief and peace with the process.

Michelle V., 32, San Francisco

I was in my second semester in college when I found out that I was pregnant. I took two at-home pregnancy tests, then made an appointment with New Generation Health Clinic to figure out my options. I was six weeks in and had just missed my period, even though I was on birth control pills. I had to find a way to deal with this pregnancy with the support of my high school boyfriend and the free programs San Francisco offered. As a desperate and clinically depressed young woman, I knew that I was not ready to be a mother. As a teenager, I was not ready to be a parent.

I took my first round of the medication at home. I had already been feeling under the weather, but shortly after taking the pills, I became very nauseous and threw up. Unfortunately, this meant that not enough medication had gone into my system, so the abortion process started but I was not sure if it had finished. The second round was also taken at home, and that one ended up doing what it was intended to do. I broke down and cried in the bathroom, with the support of my boyfriend.

The whole process was emotionally draining. I chose medicine over the in-office procedure because I thought it would be more secretive and I would be more in control. I felt like it would be more comfortable at home, and I ended up being about to let out the emotions that I was being overwhelmed by.

Anonymous, 30, Puerto Rico

My medication abortion happened when I was 29 years old. I was six weeks pregnant, and I had no idea. The pregnancy test that I took never came [back] positive or negative, so I got a blood test, and that’s when I found out I was pregnant. My symptoms were very light, only my breast felt tender, and I was very sleepy. I never thought I was that far along.

My pregnancy also happened [at] the beginning of COVID-19. Puerto Rico had at the moment the strictest lockdown. I could only go out certain days of the week and for emergencies. The clinics [were] only open three hours Monday through Friday. My parents had no idea that I was pregnant, so I scheduled my appointments for the days I went out for groceries—since the lines were so long, I had a good excuse about my timeline.

I was given the pills at the Planned Parenthood office of Santa Rosa, Bayamón. The staff over there is amazing, the most caring and sweet nurses. They treat you like family. I’m so glad I had them for support. I ended up buying them a box of Krispy Kreme during my many visits.

The doctor gave me a pill at the office and said to take four other pills under my tongue in 24 to 48 hours. I locked myself in the bathroom in my parents’ house and did what I was told. I got extremely nauseous after 15 minutes, and unfortunately I threw up some of the pills. They still did their job—they [stopped] the pregnancy. I started feeling horrible cramps for two hours, and the next day I was bleeding like crazy. I spent two weeks bleeding but no cramps—it was very similar to a heavy period. I had to wear the Always maxi pads and I would change them in three to four hours because I was bleeding that bad.

After two weeks, I had to visit Planned Parenthood again. The doctor told me that the pills [stopped] the pregnancy, but that I still had all of the tissue inside of me and my hemoglobin levels were too low and I was probably having internal bleeding for the last two weeks. He decided to do the [procedural] abortion after that.

I paid initially for the whole pill process: $300. That cover[ed] the [procedural] abortion as well. I only paid $40 for my follow-up visit that day. The doctor put local anesthesia and the process was about five minutes; it was a bit painful and uncomfortable, but it stop[ped] my internal bleeding almost immediately. The nurse was so caring and sweet because I was alone during all of this process. She would caress my hair, ask me very gently to stop crying, and she even help[ed] me clean up. After that I got two pills for the pain and had to sit on a couch. My [blood] pressure got very low and I almost fainted, [but] again the nurse was there to take care of me. After an hour of being stable, they let me go.

I hope this helps other women in this situation, and during COVID. It’s extremely sad and difficult to do this process alone, but they will feel a great relief after getting it done, especially with everything going on in the world. I couldn’t imagine myself with a baby due in a few months, living with my parents, having no job due to COVID and the “baby daddy” being the most disgusting human being that ever came to this world. I’m glad I have options for a safe and legal abortion in this little island.

Source: https://rewirenewsgroup.com/article/2020/09/24/meet-the-abortion-patients-calling-out-ted-cruz-on-his-abortion-lies/?fbclid=IwAR0M60Kv53l0FLj5rhJBGJil_D4zBBbsZvzLgtVoTLMTj3NT6JgvFt1EEv8

Democrats have also raised questions about her religious and political affiliations

Amy Coney Barrett (University of Notre Dame)

Democrats sounded the alarm about the potential Supreme Court nomination of federal appeals court Judge Amy Coney Barrett over her ties to the Federalist Society and criticism of Roe v. Wade.

Despite opposing former President Barack Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland 11 months ahead of the 2016 election, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has already announced that the upper chamber will vote on President Donald Trump’s nominee to replace late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg despite her “fervent wish” to “not be replaced until a new president is installed.”

Trump vowed to choose a woman to replace Ginsburg, and Barrett has emerged as the apparent front-runner.

“I’m saving her for Ginsburg,” Trump said of Barrett when he tapped Brett Kavanaugh to replace former Justice Anthony Kennedy in 2018, according to Axios.

Barrett, 48, has been a cause of concern for Democrats since she her confirmation to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2017. The former clerk for the late Justice Antonin Scalia is considered to be a strict constructionist. Barrett criticized Roe v. Wade, though she acknowledged that the court would “probably” let the precedent stand.

“The fundamental element — that the woman has a right to choose abortion — will probably stand,” she said during a speech at Notre Dame, according to the student newspaper. “The controversy right now is about funding. It’s a question of whether abortions will be publicly or privately funded.”

But Barrett later said that the court was likely to chip away at some abortion protections in 2016.

“I think the question of whether people can get very late-term abortions — you know, how many restrictions can be put on clinics — I think that would change,” she said in 2016, according to The New York Times.

Democrats also raised concerns about Barrett’s strict Catholicism. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., angered some conservatives when she pressed Barrett on her religious beliefs during her 2017 confirmation.

“You have a long history of believing that your religious beliefs should prevail,” Feinstein said at the time. “The dogma lives loudly within you.”

“It’s never appropriate for a judge to impose that judge’s personal convictions — whether they arise from faith or anywhere else — on the law.” Barrett responded.

The New York Times reported that Barrett and her husband, who are parents to seven children, are members of an obscure group called People of Praise.

“Members of the group swear a lifelong oath of loyalty, called a covenant, to one another, and are assigned and are accountable to a personal adviser, called a ‘head’ for men and a ‘handmaid’ for women,” the report read. “The group teaches that husbands are the heads of their wives and should take authority over the family.”

According to The Times, the group describes itself as a “charismatic Christian community.” The “heads and handmaids give direction on important decisions, including whom to date or marry, where to live, whether to take a job or buy a home and how to raise children.”

Craig Lent, one of the group’s leaders, told The Times that the group was neither “nefarious or controversial.”

“We don’t try to control people,” he said. “And there’s never any guarantee that the leader is always right. You have to discern and act in the Lord.”

Barrett is also a former member of the Federalist Society, the group which bankrolled Kavanaugh’s nomination and has been largely responsible for vetting conservative judges for Trump to appoint to federal courts.

If confirmed by the Senate, Barrett may possibly weigh in on the future of Obamacare after previously criticizing the Supreme Court’s decision which upheld the law.

“Chief Justice Roberts pushed the Affordable Care Act beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute,” she wrote in 2017.

The court is scheduled to hear arguments in a lawsuit challenging Obamacare one week following the election.

“Amy Coney Barrett meets Donald Trump’s two main litmus tests,” Nan Aron, the president of progressive advocacy group Alliance for Justice, told The New York Times. “She has made clear she would invalidate the A.C.A. and take health care away from millions of people and undermine a woman’s reproductive freedom.”

Though some associates and former classmates argued that Barrett was not ideological in her legal opinions, Politico described her frontrunner status as a potential “coup for Catholic culture warriors 25 years in the making and a high point in the right’s decades-long project of reshaping the judiciary.”

“She was kind of the Manchurian candidate,” one former colleague at Notre Dame Law School told the outlet. “She’s been groomed for this moment all the way along.”

Despite Barrett’s claim during her confirmation hearing that she would “never impose my own personal convictions upon the law,” Democrats have raised alarm over comments she made in 2012 about being a “different kind of lawyer.”

Barrett reportedly told students at Notre Dame that a “legal career is but a means to an end . . . and that end is building the Kingdom of God.”

Source: https://www.salon.com/2020/09/22/trump-supreme-court-front-runner-amy-coney-barrett-belongs-to-group-that-inspired-handmaids-tale/?fbclid=IwAR1ypU41mhvHjgSe-v4dNfT_iUCVIwCGo1Qo00tz5aNq2gyTOM38MxfTDHs

“The fate of our rights, our freedoms, our health care, our bodies, our lives, and our country depend on what happens over the coming months.”

Reproductive rights advocates mourned the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Friday, and promised to honor her by continuing the fight for safe, legal and accessible abortion care.

“Justice Ginsburg committed her life to protecting the rights, freedoms, and health of women, men, and people across the country … Tonight we honor that legacy, but tomorrow, we’re going to need to get to work to preserve the ideals she spent her life’s work defending,” Alexis McGill Johnson, president of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, said in a statement Friday. “Because this is not an understatement: The fate of our rights, our freedoms, our health care, our bodies, our lives, and our country depend on what happens over the coming months.”

Ilyse Hogue, president of the group NARAL Pro-Choice America, told HuffPost that her organization also plans to honor Ginsburg’s legacy by continuing to fight for everything she believed in.

“We must fight like hell to prevent Mitch McConnell, Donald Trump, and Senate Republicans from stealing yet another Supreme Court seat,” Hogue said. “They have been chomping at the bit waiting for this moment, and their end goal ― to end the legal right to abortion in this country ― flies in the face of the values of a vast majority of Americans: that politicians have no place in personal decisions about pregnancy.”

With Ginsburg’s death, the country is almost certainly staring down a national referendum on the landmark Roe v. Wade case. The Roberts Court has avoided major decisions on abortion rights, but many analysts believe the conservative majority has been prepping for a more dramatic reversal of a woman’s right to choose. Replacing Ginsburg with a conservative justice would leave supporters of abortion rights badly outnumbered on the high court.

Just hours after news of Ginsburg’s death broke, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) announced he would move forward with filling the late justice’s seat before the presidential election in November, despite resistance from the left.

McGill Johnson said it would be “an absolute slap in the face” to millions of Americans if McConnell and the Trump administration replaced Ginsburg with a nominee who would “undo her life’s work and take away the rights and freedoms for which she fought so hard.”

Tonight we honor that legacy, but tomorrow, we’re going to need to get to work to preserve the ideals she spent her life’s work defending.Alexis McGill Johnson, president of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund

Many reproductive rights advocates reacted to Ginsburg’s death with stark assessments of the stakes for millions of women.

The country knew that the Trump administration would do everything in its power to turn the balance of the Supreme Court firmly against abortion rights, said Destiny Lopez, co-director of the pro-choice organization All* Above All. Now, she said, we’re seeing the full consequences of an anti-choice administration.

“We frankly face the threat of abortion care being dismantled even more aggressively and systemically, and I think there’s a real threat now of women and their health care providers being arrested and sent to jail,” Lopez told HuffPost. “Their agenda is clear now, and it is to outlaw abortion in this country. This is the signal that abortion care could really become unavailable in our lifetime.”

Monica Simpson, the executive director of SisterSong, a reproductive justice organization working to amplify the voices of indigenous women and women of color, said she’s tired ― tired of the multilayered assault on civil rights that 2020 has brought, and tired of the onslaught of attacks on abortion care. She’s trying to be optimistic, she said, but she has little faith in the systems in place meant to correct these issues.

Ginsburg “was a voice for us in the highest court in the land,” Simpson told HuffPost. “The court that has ruled on two abortion cases in the past four years, with more surely in the pipeline. The court where men like Brett Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas sit ― men who have blatantly condemned abortion. A court that now has an empty seat that could be filled by a president who is responsible for almost 200,000 people dying of COVID-19 because he puts himself before the lives of others.”

But Robin Marty, a former reporter and current communications director for the Yellowhammer Fund, a group advocating reproductive justice in the South, said she hopes there will be a silver lining to Ginsburg’s death.

“Antonin Scalia’s death was the catalyst that drove Christian conservatives to the polls in 2016 and nabbed Trump his surprise Electoral College win,” Marty told HuffPost. “The odds were that even had she stayed on the bench into 2021 and was replaced by another progressive, there were still enough votes to overturn Roe.”

“With Ginsburg’s death, I’m hopeful that maybe this will galvanize progressives in the same way,” she added. “I can’t help but feel like if it does, that’s a legacy that would make her proud.”

Source: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/abortion-rights-groups-ruth-bader-ginsburg-death_n_5f657222c5b6b9795b10bd0c?fbclid=IwAR0bNahO0hBEjoOsKqdpUTO6f0AiP4dBw32Y4knplZX0y-CBNZSmDDJRXl4

None of the five possible choices to join the Supreme Court are good.

Barbara Lagoa is one of the frontrunners to take Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat on the Supreme Court. Joe Raedle/Getty Images

Only one day after the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Donald Trump announced that a “woman would be in first place” to replace her and that the “choice of a woman I would say would certainly be appropriate.”

Here are five possible choices—none of them are good.

Amy Coney Barrett

Amy Coney Barrett was a finalist for the Supreme Court seat that went to Brett Kavanaugh. Coney Barrett never practiced law; instead she taught at Notre Dame Law School for 15 years before Trump named her to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in 2017. She clerked for the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and thinks a legal career is “but a means to an end … and that end is building the Kingdom of God.”

Barrett has belonged to anti-choice faculty and church groups, and she believes abortion is “always immoral.” In short, though she has said she’d respect precedent, she’s willing to radically undermine abortion rights.

Allison Jones Rushing

Allison Jones Rushing ascended to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals at just 37 years old. If named to the Supreme Court, it’s conceivable she could serve nearly 50 years. Like Coney Barrett, she’s inexperienced, having tried only four cases to verdict or judgment, and none of those as the lead attorney. Her real qualifications are ideological. She interned for the anti-LGBTQ and anti-choice Alliance Defending Freedom and thinks the Supreme Court case United States v. Windsor, which undid the Defense of Marriage Act, was wrongly decided.

Like Coney Barrett, Rushing is terrible on reproductive health issues, having voted to bar Title X funds from going to health-care organizations that perform abortions or provide abortion referrals.

Allison Eid

Allison Eid replaced Justice Neil Gorsuch on the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals after serving on the Colorado Supreme Court. Her record reflects a long history of pushing conservative causes. While in Colorado, she argued in favor of tax dollars financing religious schools and would have exempted religious entities that receive state tax dollars from paying taxes. Since joining the Tenth Circuit, she blocked an excessive force lawsuit against a police officer who shot an unarmed man while he was running away from gunfire.

If Eid joins the Supreme Court, she would be a reliably partisan vote.

Sarah Pitlyk

Sarah Pitlyk, who sits on the U.S. District Court in St. Louis, was rated “not qualified” by the American Bar Association because she has never tried a case, examined a witness, taken a deposition, or argued a motion. Rather, Pitlyk has spent most of her time working to undermine reproductive health rights. She helped write an amicus brief in the Supreme Court case Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, calling abortion “intrinsically immoral.”

Pitlyk helped defend David Daleiden, who illegally recorded videos of Planned Parenthood employees as part of a lengthy smear campaign. Her anti-abortion activism is also deeply racist, with a focus on race-selective abortion bans that trade on the stereotype that abortion clinics target women of color.

Barbara Lagoa

Barbara Lagoa was appointed to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2019 after spending over a decade in the Florida state courts. Like all of Trump’s picks, she’s a member of the Federalist Society. During her time on the Florida courts, Lagoa, a Cuban American, racked up a lengthy record of siding with employers against employees, banks against borrowers, and the rich against the poor. She took that attitude to the 11th Circuit, where earlier this month she joined the majority in upholding Florida’s modern-day poll tax, which bans those who have completed their felony sentences from voting if they still owe fines or costs.

Source: https://rewire.news/article/2020/09/21/meet-the-five-trump-judges-who-could-replace-ruth-bader-ginsburg/?fbclid=IwAR2vs_NWYSKIJUDK12RCIbBSaE7JICdpn7XRydG9Bz0D8Ziq2pt7xAgNbMw

Supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died today, leaving the court with only three liberals. If Republicans successfully confirm a replacement, the court will have a 6-3 conservative majority that will almost certainly overturn Roe v. Wade and make abortions all but impossible to get for millions of women.Jeff Malet/Newscom via ZUMA

Rarely have I been so close and yet so far away in a prediction. This was me yesterday:

Abortion May Be the Sleeper Issue of 2020

With the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg today, Republicans now have the opportunity to replace her with a nominee whose anti-abortion credentials are impeccable. This means that everything has changed and Roe v. Wade is no longer a sleeper. It’s now the primary issue of the 2020 election. If a new justice, as part of a 6-3 conservative majority, leads to Roe’s overturning, abortion will return to being a state issue and at least half of all states will probably ban it outright. Another dozen will likely put additional restrictions on it. Millions of women will find it all but impossible to get abortions if this happens.

(As an aside, liberals can complain all they want that Mitch McConnell would be a hypocrite for blocking a Supreme Court nomination during Barack Obama’s final year while allowing one during Donald Trump’s final year, but Mitch McConnell doesn’t care. He’s going to do it and that’s that. Still, liberals should complain anyway. Not only is it worthwhile to make McConnell look bad, but if it’s done right it’s even possible—barely—that it could persuade four Republican senators to block a nomination. The odds are long, but it’s worth a try.)

Obviously firm pro-life voters and firm pro-choice voters have already made up their minds about how to vote on abortion issues, but there are still plenty of voters in the middle and it’s genuinely unclear how to appeal to them. Consider the following:

  • Only about a third of Americans think abortion should be banned in all or most cases.
  • On the other hand, a majority believe abortion rules should be stricter.
  • About 60 percent want Roe v. Wade to stay on the books. Only about 30 percent want it overturned.

Republicans have a very fine line to walk on abortion. They’re going to be under considerable pressure to nominate a justice who will, at a minimum, flat-out overturn Roe v. Wade. In fact, social conservatives would ideally like to see Roe overturned and onerous restrictions placed on states at the same time. The nominee, of course, will go through the usual kabuki dance of swearing that they’ve barely even heard of Roe v. Wade, let alone formed an opinion about it, but that hardly matters. What matters, since everyone knows this is a charade, is what social conservatives say. If they go overboard on their demands, it could turn off a big chunk of voters.

Democrats have the same problem in reverse. If they stick to supporting Roe, everything is probably fine. But if they start yelling about declaring war on Republicans and packing the Supreme Court if Trump’s nominee is confirmed, that could turn off a big chunk of voters too.

For liberals, then, the best strategy is likely the following:

  • Behind the scenes, Democratic senators should quietly make it clear that confirmation of a Republican nominee does indeed mean war. But they should do it in a way that keeps it out of the public eye.
  • Publicly, Democrats should hold their noses and appeal to voters in the middle by talking about how abortion is a heart-rending decision, but one that should be left up to a woman and her doctor.
  • At the same time, Democrats should try to figure out a way to bait conservatives into going full lunatic over abortion. This would go a long way toward turning off a lot of people.

Does it make any sense that an election that a few hours ago seemed to be about everything at once has suddenly condensed into one that will probably end up being decided by 46 days of arguments about abortion above all else? Of course not. But that’s the situation we’re in. We have to deal with it

Source: https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2020/09/abortion-is-suddenly-the-biggest-issue-in-the-presidential-election/

The second woman appointed to the Supreme Court, Justice Ginsburg’s pointed and powerful dissenting opinions earned her late-life rock stardom.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the second woman to serve on the Supreme Court and a pioneering advocate for women’s rights, who in her ninth decade became a much younger generation’s unlikely cultural icon, died on Friday at her home in Washington. She was 87.

The cause was complications of metastatic pancreatic cancer, the Supreme Court said.

By the time two small tumors were found in one of her lungs in December 2018, during a follow-up scan for broken ribs suffered in a recent fall, Justice Ginsburg had beaten colon cancer in 1999 and early-stage pancreatic cancer 10 years later. She received a coronary stent to clear a blocked artery in 2014.

Barely five feet tall and weighing 100 pounds, Justice Ginsburg drew comments for years on her fragile appearance. But she was tough, working out regularly with a trainer, who published a book about his famous client’s challenging exercise regime.

As Justice Ginsburg passed her 80th birthday and 20th anniversary on the Supreme Court bench during President Barack Obama’s second term, she shrugged off a chorus of calls for her to retire in order to give a Democratic president the chance to name her replacement. She planned to stay “as long as I can do the job full steam,” she would say, sometimes adding, “There will be a president after this one, and I’m hopeful that that president will be a fine president.”

When Justice Sandra Day O’Connor retired in January 2006, Justice Ginsburg was for a time the only woman on the Supreme Court — hardly a testament to the revolution in the legal status of women that she had helped bring about in her career as a litigator and strategist.

Her years as the solitary female justice were “the worst times,” she recalled in a 2014 interview. “The image to the public entering the courtroom was eight men, of a certain size, and then this little woman sitting to the side. That was not a good image for the public to see.” Eventually she was joined by two other women, both named by Mr. Obama: Sonia Sotomayor in 2009 and Elena Kagan in 2010.

ImageJustice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 2013 in her chambers. She once said that her years as the solitary female justice were “the worst times.”
Credit…Todd Heisler/The New York Times

After the 2010 retirement of Justice John Paul Stevens, whom Justice Kagan succeeded, Justice Ginsburg became the senior member and de facto leader of a four-justice liberal bloc, consisting of the three female justices and Justice Stephen G. Breyer. Unless they could attract a fifth vote, which Justice Anthony M. Kennedy provided on increasingly rare occasions before his retirement in 2018, the four were often in dissent on the ideologically polarized court.

Justice Ginsburg’s pointed and powerful dissenting opinions, usually speaking for all four, attracted growing attention as the court turned further to the right. A law student, Shana Knizhnik, anointed her the Notorious R.B.G., a play on the name of the Notorious B.I.G., a famous rapper who was Brooklyn-born, like the justice. Soon the name, and Justice Ginsburg’s image — her expression serene yet severe, a frilly lace collar adorning her black judicial robe, her eyes framed by oversize glasses and a gold crown perched at a rakish angle on her head — became an internet sensation.

Young women had the image tattooed on their arms; daughters were dressed in R.B.G. costumes for Halloween. “You Can’t Spell Truth Without Ruth” appeared on bumper stickers and T-shirts. A biography, “Notorious RBG: The Life and Times of Ruth Bader Ginsburg,” by Irin Carmon and Ms. Knizhnik, reached the best-seller list the day after its publication in 2015, and the next year Simon & Schuster brought out a Ginsburg biography for children with the title “I Dissent.” A documentary film of her life was a surprise box office hit in the summer of 2018, and a Hollywood biopic centered on her first sex discrimination court case opened on Christmas Day that year.

The adulation accelerated after the election of Donald J. Trump, whom Justice Ginsburg had had the indiscretion to call “a faker” in an interview during the 2016 presidential campaign. (She later said her comment had been “ill advised.”) Scholars of the culture searched for an explanation for the phenomenon. Dahlia Lithwick, writing in The Atlantic in early 2019, offered this observation: “Today, more than ever, women starved for models of female influence, authenticity, dignity, and voice hold up an octogenarian justice as the embodiment of hope for an empowered future.”

President Bill Clinton with Justice Ginsburg in 1993, when he nominated her to the Supreme Court.
Credit…Doug Mills/Associated Press

Her late-life rock stardom could not remotely have been predicted in June 1993, when President Bill Clinton nominated the soft-spoken, 60-year-old judge, who prized collegiality and whose friendship with conservative colleagues on the federal appeals court where she had served for 13 years left some feminist leaders fretting privately that the president was making a mistake. Mr. Clinton chose her to succeed Justice Byron R. White, an appointee of President John F. Kennedy, who was retiring after 31 years. Her Senate confirmation seven weeks later, by a vote of 96 to 3, ended a drought in Democratic appointments to the Supreme Court that extended back to President Lyndon B. Johnson’s nomination of Thurgood Marshall 26 years earlier.

There was something fitting about that sequence, because Ruth Ginsburg was occasionally described as the Thurgood Marshall of the women’s rights movement by those who remembered her days as a litigator and director of the Women’s Rights Project of the American Civil Liberties Union during the 1970s.

The analogy was based on her sense of strategy and careful selection of cases as she persuaded the all-male Supreme Court, one case at a time, to start recognizing the constitutional barrier against discrimination on the basis of sex. The young Thurgood Marshall had done much the same as the civil rights movement’s chief legal strategist in building the case against racial segregation.

When Ruth Ginsburg arrived to take her junior justice’s seat at the far end of the Supreme Court’s bench on the first Monday of October 1993, the setting was familiar even if the view was different. She had previously stood on the other side of that bench, arguing cases that were to become legal landmarks. She presented six cases to the court from 1973 to 1978, winning five.

Her goal — to persuade the Supreme Court that the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection applied not only to racial discrimination but to sex discrimination as well — was a daunting one. The Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren, famous for its liberal rulings across a variety of constitutional fronts, had never recognized sex discrimination as a matter of constitutional concern. The Supreme Court under Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, who was appointed by President Richard Nixon in 1969, figured to be no more hospitable.

Ms. Ginsburg in 1972. She became the first tenured female professor at Columbia Law School before moving on to the United States Court of Appeals and then the Supreme Court.
Credit…Librado Romero/The New York Times

Ms. Ginsburg started from the premise that she needed to provide some basic education for an audience that was not so much hostile as uncomprehending. She took aim at laws that were ostensibly intended to protect women — laws based on stereotyped notions of male and female abilities and needs.

“The justices did not comprehend the differential treatment of men and women in jury selection and other legal contexts as in any sense burdensome to women,” she said in a 1988 speech. She added: “From a justice’s own situation in life and attendant perspective, his immediate reaction to a gender discrimination challenge would likely be: But I treat my wife and daughters so well, with such indulgence. To turn in a new direction, the court first had to gain an understanding that legislation apparently designed to benefit or protect women could have the opposite effect.”Ms. Ginsburg in 1993 with her grandchildren Clara Spera and Paul Spera.

Credit…Reuters

So there was a successful challenge to an Idaho law that gave men preference over women to be chosen to administer estates, a practice the state had defended as being based on men’s greater familiarity with the world of business (Reed v. Reed, 1971). There was a case challenging a military regulation that denied husbands of women in the military some of the benefits to which wives of male soldiers were entitled, on the assumption that a man was not likely to be the dependent spouse (Frontiero v. Richardson, 1973).

Another case challenged a Social Security provision that assumed wives were secondary breadwinners whose incomes were unimportant to the family and therefore deprived widowers of survivor benefits (Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld, 1975). In that case, as in several others, the plaintiff was a man. Stephen Wiesenfeld’s wife, Paula, had died in childbirth, and he sought the benefits so he could stay home and raise their child, Jason. After the Supreme Court victory, Ms. Ginsburg stayed in touch with the father and child, and in 1998 she traveled to Florida to help officiate at Jason’s wedding. In 2014, in a ceremony at the Supreme Court 42 years after Paula Wiesenfeld’s death, Justice Ginsburg presided over her one-time client’s second marriage.

In a 1976 case, Craig v. Boren, which Ms. Ginsburg worked on but did not personally argue, the Supreme Court for the first time formally adopted the rule that official distinctions based on sex were subject to “heightened scrutiny” from the courts. In that case, the court struck down an Oklahoma law that permitted girls to buy beer at age 18 but required boys to wait until they were 21.

The precise question the court addressed in Craig v. Boren may not have been profound, but the constitutional consequences of the answer certainly were. Although the court never adopted the rule of “strict scrutiny” that Ms. Ginsburg argued for in her early cases, instead reserving that most burdensome judicial test essentially for race discrimination, the initially reluctant justices had clearly embraced the conclusion that the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection included equality of the sexes.

Justice Ginsburg, right, with, from left, Justices John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O’Connor, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas descending the steps of the Supreme Court to watch the casket procession for Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist in 2005.
Credit…Doug Mills/The New York Times

It was a moment of personal triumph, therefore, when nearly 20 years after making her last argument before the Supreme Court, Justice Ginsburg announced the court’s majority opinion in a 1996 discrimination case involving the Virginia Military Institute in Lexington. By a lopsided 7 to 1, the court had found that the all-male admissions policy of a state-supported military college was unconstitutional.

Virginia had argued that its “adversative” method of educating young men to be citizen-soldiers through a physically challenging curriculum was unsuited for young women. Under legal pressure, the state had set up an alternative military college for women — less rigorous and notably lacking the powerful alumni network that conferred substantial advantages on V.M.I. graduates.

That was not good enough, Justice Ginsburg wrote for the majority in United States v. Virginia. She explained that the state had failed to provide the “exceedingly persuasive justification” that the Constitution required for treating men and women differently. “Women seeking and fit for a V.M.I.-quality education cannot be offered anything less under the state’s obligation to afford them genuinely equal protection,” she wrote, adding, “Generalizations about ‘the way women are,’ estimates of what is appropriate for most women, no longer justify denying opportunity to women whose talent and capacity place them outside the average description.”

In this majority opinion, the most important of her tenure, Justice Ginsburg took pains to make clear that the Constitution did not require ignoring all differences between the sexes. “Inherent differences between men and women, we have come to appreciate, remain cause for celebration,” she wrote, “but not for denigration of the members of either sex or for artificial constraints on an individual’s opportunity.” Any differential treatment, she emphasized, must not “create or perpetuate the legal, social, and economic inferiority of women.”

In August 2018, Justice Ginsburg visited the Virginia Military Institute for the first time and addressed the corps of cadets, which included nearly 200 women among the student body of 1,700. She knew that her decision “would make V.M.I. a better place,” she told cadets.

On June 26, 1996, as Justice Ginsburg delivered her opinion in the V.M.I. case, there was a subtext, not necessarily apparent to the courtroom audience. She described the moment in a speech the following year to the Women’s Bar Association in Washington: how she had glanced across the bench to her colleague, Justice O’Connor, who herself had helped weave the legal fabric that supported the V.M.I. decision. Justice O’Connor, early in her tenure as the first woman on the Supreme Court, had written a majority opinion that ordered an all-female state nursing school in Mississippi to admit men, warning against using “archaic and stereotypic notions” about the proper roles for men and women. Justice O’Connor’s opinion in that 1982 case relied on the Supreme Court precedents that Ruth Ginsburg’s cases had set. And Justice Ginsburg’s opinion in the V.M.I. case in turn cited Justice O’Connor’s 1982 opinion, Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan. The constitutional circle was closed.

The two justices, three years apart in age, with Justice O’Connor the elder, were among the first generation of women to make their way into the highest levels of a legal profession that was hardly waiting to welcome them. Justice O’Connor was offered nothing but secretarial jobs after graduating among the top students in her class at Stanford University’s law school. Justice Ginsburg, one of nine women in her Harvard Law School class of 552, was a law review editor and outstanding student who was recommended by one of her professors for a position as a law clerk to Justice Felix Frankfurter. The professor, Albert Sacks, who later became dean of the law school, wrote to Justice Frankfurter, a former Harvard law professor, that “the lady has extraordinary self-possession” and that “her qualities of mind and person would make her most attractive to you as a law clerk.” The justice, who had never hired a woman, declined to invite the star student for an interview.

Justices O’Connor and Ginsburg in 2001. When Justice O’Connor retired in January 2006, Justice Ginsburg was for a while the only woman on the Supreme Court.
Credit…David Hume Kennerly/Getty Images

Their common life experience gave the two women a bond that appeared to grow in intensity despite their opposing views on such important areas of the court’s docket as affirmative action and federalism, and despite their very different origins: one the daughter of Southwestern ranchers and the other the Brooklyn-born daughter of Russian Jews.

Ruth’s father, Nathan Bader, immigrated to New York with his family when he was 13. Her mother, the former Celia Amster, was born four months after her family’s own arrival. Ruth, who was named Joan Ruth at birth and whose childhood nickname was Kiki, was born on March 15, 1933. She grew up in Brooklyn’s Flatbush neighborhood essentially as an only child; an older sister died of meningitis at the age of 6 when Ruth was 14 months old. The family owned small retail stores, including a fur store and a hat shop. Money was never plentiful.

Celia Bader was an intellectually ambitious woman who graduated from high school at 15 but had not been able to go to college; her family sent her to work in Manhattan’s garment district so her brother could attend Cornell University. She had high ambitions for her daughter but did not live to see them fulfilled. She was found to have cervical cancer when Ruth was a freshman at James Madison High School, and she died at the age of 47 in 1950, on the day before her daughter’s high school graduation. After the graduation ceremony that Ruth was unable to attend, her teachers brought her many medals and awards to the house.

On June 14, 1993, when Judge Ginsburg stood with Mr. Clinton in the Rose Garden for the announcement of her Supreme Court nomination, she brought tears to the president’s eyes with a tribute to her mother. “I pray that I may be all that she would have been had she lived in an age when women could aspire and achieve and daughters are cherished as much as sons,” she said.

Ruth Bader attended Cornell on a scholarship. During her freshman year, she met a sophomore, Martin Ginsburg. For the 17-year-old Ruth, the attraction was immediate. “He was the only boy I ever met who cared that I had a brain,” she said frequently in later years. By her junior year, they were engaged, and they married after her graduation in 1954. Theirs was a lifelong romantic and intellectual partnership. In outward respects, they were opposites. While she was reserved, choosing her words carefully, with long pauses between sentences that left some conversation partners unnerved, he was an ebullient raconteur, quick with a joke of which he himself was often the butt. The depth of their bond, and their mutual commitment to treating their family and careers as a shared enterprise, was nonetheless apparent to all who knew them as a couple.

Mr. Ginsburg, a highly successful tax lawyer, would become his wife’s biggest booster, happily giving up his lucrative New York law practice to move with her to Washington in 1980, when President Jimmy Carter named her to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Thirteen years later, he lobbied vigorously behind the scenes for her appointment to the Supreme Court.

Settling in Washington, Mr. Ginsburg taught tax law at Georgetown University’s law school. He occupied a chair that a longtime client, Ross Perot, had endowed for him in gratitude for years of tax advice that had saved the Texas entrepreneur untold millions of dollars. He was also a gourmet cook who did the family’s cooking and, later, baked delicacies for his wife to share with colleagues at the court. (Ruth Ginsburg was, by her own description, a terrible cook whose children forbade her from entering the kitchen.) The Ginsburgs lived in a duplex apartment at the Watergate, next to the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, where they frequently attended the opera and ballet. Their 56-year marriage ended with his death from cancer in 2010 at the age of 78. In his final days, he left a note, handwritten on a yellow pad, for his wife to find by his bedside.

“My dearest Ruth,” it began. “You are the only person I have loved in my life, setting aside, a bit, parents and kids and their kids, and I have admired and loved you almost since the day we first met at Cornell.” He added, “What a treat it has been to watch you progress to the very top of the legal world!!”

Judge Ginsburg and her husband, Martin, at her Supreme Court confirmation hearings.
Credit…Stephen Crowley

Their two children, Jane, a professor of intellectual property law at Columbia Law School, and James, a producer of classical music recordings in Chicago, survive, along with four grandchildren.

Following their marriage, the couple settled in Lawton, Okla., where Mr. Ginsburg, having served in the R.O.T.C. during college, was due to spend two years as an Army officer at nearby Fort Sill. Ms. Ginsburg applied for a government job at the local Social Security office. She was offered a position as a claims examiner at the Civil Service rank of GS-5, but when she informed the personnel office that she was pregnant — with Jane, her first child — the offer was withdrawn. A pregnant woman could not travel for the necessary training, she was told. She accepted a clerk-typist job at the lowly rank of GS-2. As one of her biographers, Jane Sherron De Hart, wrote in “Ruth Bader Ginsburg: A Life” (2018), the young wife, soon-to-be mother and future feminist icon “rationalized the incident as ‘just the way things are.’” It would be years before Ruth Ginsburg made it her life’s work to challenge the web of assumptions and the assignment of roles that limited women’s opportunities.

Early in their marriage, with both enrolled at Harvard Law School (Mr. Ginsburg had completed his first year before entering the Army), the couple faced a daunting crisis. During his third year of law school, Mr. Ginsburg learned he had an aggressive testicular cancer, which was treated with radiation. The prognosis was poor, and he was rarely able to attend class. Other students took notes for him, and Ms. Ginsburg, while attending class herself and caring for their young daughter, typed up the notes and helped him study. He recovered and graduated on time.

Harvard Law School was a challenge for women even in the best of times. There were no women on the faculty. During Ms. Ginsburg’s first year, the dean, Erwin Griswold, invited the nine women in the class to dinner and interrogated each one, asking why she felt entitled to be in the class, taking the place of a man. Ruth stammered her answer: that because her husband was going to be a lawyer, she wanted to be able to understand his work.

When her husband received a job offer in New York, Ms. Ginsburg asked Harvard officials if she could spend her final year at Columbia and still receive a Harvard degree. The request was denied, so she transferred and received a Columbia degree, tying for first place in the class. In 1972, she became the first woman to receive tenure on the Columbia law faculty.

The experience evidently continued to rankle, and some years later, after Harvard announced that it was changing its policy and would now award a Harvard degree to students in similar predicaments, Mr. Ginsburg wrote the Harvard Law Record an ironic letter recalling that the incident had left his wife’s “career blighted at an early age.”

“I asked Ruth if she planned to trade in her Columbia degree for a Harvard degree,” Mr. Ginsburg wrote. “She just smiled.” Harvard gave her an honorary degree in 2011 at a ceremony during which Plácido Domingo, another honorary degree recipient that year, addressed her in song. Justice Ginsburg, an opera devotee, called it one of the greatest experiences of her life.

After her graduation from Columbia, Ms. Ginsburg received no job offers from New York law firms. She spent two years clerking for a federal district judge, Edmund L. Palmieri, who agreed to hire her only after one of her mentors, Prof. Gerald Gunther, threatened never to send the judge another law clerk if he did not.

After the clerkship, Ms. Ginsburg returned to Columbia to work on a comparative law project on civil procedure. The project required her to learn Swedish and to spend time in Sweden. The experience proved formative. Feminism was flourishing in Sweden, and there was nothing unusual about women combining work and family obligations. Child care was readily available. An article by the editor of a feminist magazine caught Ms. Ginsburg’s attention. “We ought to stop harping on the concept of women’s two roles,” the editor, Eva Moberg, wrote. “Both men and women have one principal role, that of being people.”

Between 1963 and 1970, Ms. Ginsburg produced a treatise on Swedish civil law, which remains a leading work in the field, along with a dozen other articles and books. But more than this impressive academic output, the most important product of her Swedish interval may have been the effect on the young lawyer of directly observing a different way to organize society.

After more prestigious law schools, including Columbia and New York University, would not hire her, she took a job teaching at Rutgers Law School, where she was the second woman on the faculty. In fact, fewer than two dozen women were teaching at all American law schools combined. Her second child, James, nine years younger than his sister, was born during this period.

In addition to teaching, she began volunteering to handle discrimination cases for the New Jersey affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union, which brought her such cases as complaints by public-school teachers who had lost their jobs when they became pregnant. A childhood friend from summer camp, Melvin Wulf, who had become national legal director for the A.C.L.U., heard about her work and brought more cases her way. Among them was the Idaho case on estate administrators that eventually became her first Supreme Court victory, Reed v. Reed. The 88-page brief she filed in that case, an inventory of all the ways in which law served to reinforce society’s oppression of women, became famous in legal history as the “grandmother brief,” on which feminist lawyers drew for many years.

In 1972, the A.C.L.U. created a Women’s Rights Project and hired Ms. Ginsburg as its first director. At the same time, she left Rutgers and began teaching at Columbia. It was under the A.C.L.U. project’s auspices that she carried out her Supreme Court litigation strategy to persuade the justices that official discrimination on the basis of sex was a harm of constitutional dimension.

Ms. Ginsburg was hired as the first director of the A.C.L.U.’s Women’s Rights Project in 1972.
Credit…Librado Romero/The New York Times

The implications of this strategy were not immediately apparent, even to those who watched closely as it unfolded. Clearly, Ms. Ginsburg was doing something different in selecting cases in which the victims of disparate government treatment were men. On one level, it was obvious that she was trying to feed the justices a diet of cases they could easily digest: Why should men be treated less generously than women simply because they were men? What the government owed to one sex, it owed to the other, full stop.

But for Ms. Ginsburg, something deeper and more radical was at stake. Her project was to free both sexes, men as well as women, from the roles that society had assigned them and to harness the Constitution to break down the structures by which the state maintained and enforced those separate spheres. That was why a widowed father seeking social welfare to enable him to be his baby’s caregiver was the perfect plaintiff: not only because his claim to the benefits that would go automatically to a widow might strike sympathetic justices as reasonable, but because his very goal could open the court’s eyes to the fact that child care was not a sex-determined role to be performed only by women.

Wendy W. Williams, an emeritus professor of law at Georgetown University Law Center and Justice Ginsburg’s authorized biographer, wrote in a 2013 article that Ms. Ginsburg’s litigation campaign succeeded in “targeting, laserlike, the complex and pervasive legal framework that treated women as yin and men as yang, and either rewarded them for their compliance with sex-appropriate role behavior or penalized them for deviation from it.”

Professor Williams continued: “She saw that male and female were viewed in law and beyond as a natural duality — polar opposites interconnected and interdependent by nature or divine design — and she understood that you couldn’t untie one half of that knot.” Male plaintiffs were thus essential to the project of dismantling what Justice Ginsburg referred to as “sex-role pigeonholing.” Sex discrimination hurt both men and women, and both stood to be liberated by Ruth Ginsburg’s vision of sex equality.

Prof. Neil S. Siegel of Duke Law School described that vision as one of “equal citizenship stature.” A former Ginsburg law clerk, he described in a 2009 article a moment when “an adoring female visitor to chambers once remarked to Justice Ginsburg that her ‘feminist’ girlfriends just loved the justice for what she had done for American women.” According to Professor Siegel, “the justice replied to the effect that she hoped the visitor’s male friends loved her as well.”

Many who had followed Ms. Ginsburg’s litigating career expressed surprise as she began compiling a moderate rather than liberal voting record on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which she joined in 1980. She sometimes appeared more comfortable with the court’s conservative members, who included such judges as Antonin Scalia and Robert H. Bork, than with liberal colleagues including Judge Patricia M. Wald, another appointee of Mr. Carter’s who was the first woman to serve on that important court.

In fact, Judge Ginsburg’s anomalous role as what might be called a judicial-restraint liberal sprang from deep convictions that in a healthy democracy, the judicial branch should work in partnership with the other branches, rather than seek to impose a last word that left no room for further discussion.

This was the basis for her criticism of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court’s 1973 decision establishing a constitutional right to abortion. In a speech at New York University Law School in 1993, several months before her nomination to the Supreme Court, she criticized the ruling as having “halted a political process that was moving in a reform direction and thereby, I believe, prolonged divisiveness and deferred stable settlement of the issue.”

While leaving no doubt about her own support for abortion rights, she said the court would have done better to issue a narrow rather than sweeping ruling, one that left states with some ability to regulate abortions without prohibiting them. “The framers of the Constitution allowed to rest in the court’s hands large authority to rule on the Constitution’s meaning” but “armed the court with no swords to carry out its pronouncements,” she said, adding that the court had to be wary of “taking giant strides and thereby risking a backlash too forceful to contain.”

In contrast to Judge Ginsburg’s underlying assumption, there was in fact ample evidence that what had once appeared a steady legislative march toward revision or repeal of the old criminal abortion laws had stalled by 1973 in the face of powerful lobbying by the Roman Catholic Church. And there was also evidence that the backlash against the decision was not a spontaneous response — in fact, polling in the decision’s immediate aftermath demonstrated widespread and growing public approval — but rather was elicited by Republican strategists hunting for Catholic voters, who had traditionally been Democrats. In later years, Justice Ginsburg acknowledged questions about the historical accuracy of her narrative, but she maintained her criticism of the decision.

The New York University speech alarmed the leaders of some women’s groups and abortion rights organizations, some of whom lobbied quietly against her when Justice White announced in March 1993 that he would soon be leaving the court. Mr. Clinton, making his first nomination to the court, conducted an almost painfully public search among judges and political figures, with contenders including Mario Cuomo, then the governor of New York, who turned him down, and Bruce Babbitt, the incumbent secretary of the interior.

As the search wound down, it appeared the president had chosen Stephen G. Breyer, chief judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston, who had come to Washington at the president’s invitation for an interview. Judge Breyer was in pain from broken ribs suffered in a recent bicycle accident, and the interview did not go well. Martin Ginsburg, meanwhile, had been urging New York’s senior senator, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, to press his wife’s case with the president. Mr. Clinton was at first reluctant, grumbling to Mr. Moynihan that “the women are against her.” But after a 90-minute private meeting with Judge Ginsburg on Sunday, June 13, the president made up his mind. He called her at 11:33 that night to tell her that she was his choice.

“I believe that in the years ahead she will be able to be a force for consensus-building on the Supreme Court, just as she has been on the Court of Appeals,” Mr. Clinton said at the announcement ceremony the next day. The appointment proved highly popular with the public, and she was confirmed on Aug. 3, 1993, over the dissenting votes of three of the Senate’s most conservative Republicans: Jesse Helms of North Carolina, Don Nickles of Oklahoma and Robert C. Smith of New Hampshire.

Addressing the Senate Judiciary Committee, Judge Ginsburg said her approach to judging was “neither ‘liberal’ nor ‘conservative.’” She did, however, make clear that her support for the right to abortion, despite her criticism of Roe v. Wade, was unequivocal. In answer to a question from Senator Hank Brown, a Colorado Republican, she said: “This is something central to a woman’s life, to her dignity. It’s a decision that she must make for herself. And when government controls that decision for her, she’s being treated as less than a fully adult human responsible for her own choices.”

Fourteen years later, on a Supreme Court that had turned notably more conservative with the departures of Justices Marshall and O’Connor and their replacement by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr., Justice Ginsburg expressed herself on the subject of abortion in one of her most stinging and widely noticed dissenting opinions. In Gonzales v. Carhart, the court by a 5-to-4 vote upheld a federal law criminalizing a particular procedure that doctors used infrequently to terminate pregnancies during the second trimester. In his majority opinion, Justice Kennedy said the law was justified in part to protect women from the regret they might feel after undergoing the procedure. That rationale, Justice Ginsburg objected in dissent, relied on “an anti-abortion shibboleth” — the notion that women regret their abortions — for which the court “concededly has no reliable evidence.” The majority’s “way of thinking,” she wrote, “reflects ancient notions about women’s place in the family and under the Constitution — ideas that have long since been discredited.”

It was during that 2006-7 Supreme Court term that Justice Ginsburg’s powerful dissenting voice emerged. Another decision that term provoked another strong dissent. The court voted 5 to 4 in the case of Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company to reject a woman’s pay discrimination claim on the grounds that the woman, Lilly Ledbetter, had not filed her complaint within the statutory 180-day deadline. Justice Alito’s majority opinion held that the 180-day clock had started running with Ms. Ledbetter’s first paycheck reflecting the management’s decision to pay her less than it paid the men doing the same job.

Justice Ginsburg objected that, properly interpreted, the 180-period began only when an employee actually learned about the discrimination. Congress should make this clear, she wrote, declaring: “The ball is in Congress’s court.” The impact of her unusually direct call to Congress was magnified because she took the unusual step of announcing her dissent from the bench. What might have been seen as a technical dispute over a statute of limitations became a very public call to arms.

It worked. Congress voted to overturn what Justice Ginsburg called the court’s “parsimonious reading” of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. On Jan. 29, 2009, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act was the first bill that Mr. Obama signed into law. “Justice Ginsburg was courting the people,” Prof. Lani Guinier of Harvard Law School wrote in a 2013 essay. Professor Guinier called the oral dissent “a democratizing form of judicial speech” that “could be easily understood by those outside the courtroom.”

Justice Ginsburg took care with her opinions, those for the majority as well as those in dissent. Her opinions were tightly composed, with straightforward declarative sentences and a minimum of jargon. She sometimes said she was inspired to pay attention to writing by studying literature under Vladimir Nabokov at Cornell.

Still, it was her dissents, particularly those she announced from the bench, that received the most attention. Playing along with her crowd, she took to switching the decorative collars she wore with her judicial robe on days when she would be announcing a dissent. She even wore her “dissenting collar,” which one observer described as “resembling a piece of medieval armor,” the day after Mr. Trump’s election.

One of her best-known dissents came in 2013 in Shelby County v. Holder, in which the 5-to-4 majority eviscerated the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by invalidating the provision that required Southern jurisdictions, along with some others, to receive federal permission — “preclearance” — before making a change in voting procedures.

“What has become of the court’s usual restraint?” Justice Ginsburg demanded in an ironic reference to conservative calls for “judicial restraint.” And she ended her announcement with these words: “The great man who led the march from Selma to Montgomery and there called for the passage of the Voting Rights Act foresaw progress, even in Alabama. ‘The arc of the moral universe is long,’ he said, but ‘it bends toward justice,’ if there is a steadfast commitment to see the task through to completion. That commitment has been disserved by today’s decision.”

A 2018 portrait of U.S. Supreme Court justices. In later years Justice Ginsburg drew comments for years on her fragile appearance, but she shrugged off calls for her to retire.
Credit…J. Scott Applewhite/Associated Press

Among Justice Ginsburg’s roughly 200 majority opinions — seven or eight per term — one of her favorites came in a relatively obscure decision in 1996 called M.L.B. v. S.L.J. The question was whether a parent whose parental rights had been terminated by a court decree had a right to appeal even if unable to pay the cost of having the official court record prepared. The Supreme Court of Mississippi had ruled that the state had no obligation to pay for the required record, without which the appeal could not proceed.

Constitutional doctrine offered no clear path to ruling for the mother, M.L.B. With few exceptions, most notably the right to a lawyer for an indigent criminal defendant, the Constitution does not grant affirmative rights, and Supreme Court precedent rejects the notion that poverty is a condition deserving of special judicial consideration as a matter of equal protection. So Justice Ginsburg anchored her 6-to-3 decision in a separate line of cases in which the court had treated protection for family relationships as fundamental.

“The state may not bolt the door to equal justice” when it came to parental rights, she wrote in an opinion that delicately threaded the needle between unfavorable Supreme Court precedents and those from which favorable legal authority could be extrapolated. “In this context,” Prof. Martha Minow, a dean of Harvard Law School, wrote in an admiring essay on the opinion, “Justice Ginsburg’s opinion for the court in M.L.B. v. S.L.J. is truly extraordinary.”

A decision in 2017 addressed the differential treatment imposed by federal immigration law on unwed mothers and unwed fathers who seek to transmit their American citizenship to their children born overseas. Under the law, the mother could transmit her American citizenship as long as she had lived in the United States for at least one year. For fathers, the requirement was five years. The assumption built into the law was that while the mother’s identity was obvious, it was less so for fathers, who were less likely to assume the responsibility of parenthood on behalf of their out-of-wedlock offspring.

Writing for a 6-to-2 majority in Sessions v. Morales-Santana, Justice Ginsburg found the law to violate the constitutional guarantee of equal protection. The sex-based distinction, she wrote, was “stunningly anachronistic,” reflecting “an era when the law books of our nation were rife with overbroad generalizations about the way men and women are.” Invoking language she had used for many decades, first as an advocate and now as a justice, she continued, “Overbroad generalizations of that order, the court has come to comprehend, have a constraining impact, descriptive though they may be of the way many people still order their lives.”

Asked often to explain the success of her 1970s litigation campaign, Justice Ginsburg usually offered some version of having been in the right place with the right arguments at the right time.

“How fortunate I was to be alive and a lawyer,” she wrote in the preface to “My Own Words,” a compilation of her writing published in 2016, “when, for the first time in U.S. history, it became possible to urge, successfully, before legislatures and courts, the equal-citizenship stature of women and men as a fundamental constitutional principle.”

Still, she could not fully deny that she had played more than a walk-on role. “What caused the court’s understanding to dawn and grow?” she asked in an article published in the Hofstra Law Review in 1997. “Judges do read the newspapers and are affected, not by the weather of the day, as distinguished constitutional law professor Paul Freund once said, but by the climate of the era.

“Supreme Court justices, and lower court judges as well, were becoming aware of a sea change in United States society. Their enlightenment was advanced publicly by the briefs filed in court and privately, I suspect, by the aspirations of the women, particularly the daughters and granddaughters, in their own families and communities.”

Justice Ginsburg was as precise in her appearance as in her approach to her work. She wore her dark hair pulled back and favored finely tailored suits by the designer Giorgio Armani, interspersed occasionally with flamboyantly patterned jackets acquired on distant travels. She appeared on several lists of best-dressed women.

Justice Ginsburg had battled health issues for years, vowing to stay on the court &ldquo;as long as I can do the job full steam.&rdquo;
Credit…Hilary Swift for The New York Times

Although on the bench she was an active and persistent questioner, in social settings she tended to say little. She often let her more outgoing and jovial husband speak for her, and she struck those who did not know her well as shy and even withdrawn — although in talking about her great love, opera, she could become almost lyrical. Still, there was so little wasted motion that it was nearly impossible to imagine her as the high school cheerleader and twirler she had once been.

It was not so much that there were two sides to her personality, as it might have appeared, as that her innate shyness simply disappeared when she had a job to do. She once recalled that before her first Supreme Court argument, she was so nervous that she did not eat lunch “for fear I might throw up.”

But about two minutes into the argument, “the fear dissolved,” she said. She realized that she had a “captive audience” of the most powerful judges in America, and “I felt a surge of power that carried me through.”

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/18/us/ruth-bader-ginsburg-dead.html?fbclid=IwAR13KjaCAouft4TBTeim_XVmw7wIP-fR4ScHcya3U4niNNwjGRRNoF20nZc

Amanda Matos and Bonyen Lee-Gilmore from Planned Parenthood Votes on why abortion access is reserved for the privileged — and how this election could change that

Abortion rights shouldn’t be reserved for a privileged few.
Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images

This is the story of two worlds in the U.S. — where the power to decide what happens to your body, your life, and your future depends on the state you live in, who you are, and how much money you earn. We are cisgender heterosexual women of color, representing two of the fastest-growing groups in the American electorate. As a Latina and an Asian American woman, we know the right to live free from discrimination goes beyond who we elect to the White House. We are freedom-fighting activistas who carry light-skinned privilege, and know our votes are bigger than our individual stories.

As a New Yorker, one of us benefits from state leaders who protect the right to an abortion, no matter who sits in the White House or on the Supreme Court. Yet not everyone in New York has equal access to that right. Even if you can find money for the abortion — a big “if” — you may not be able to take time off from work or afford childcare or transportation.

By contrast, one of us lives in Missouri, where there is only one abortion provider in the entire state because politicians have eroded abortion access. Senior Missouri health officials even admit to tracking our menstrual cycles on a spreadsheet to control our access to health care — the latest in a long history of surveillance of our reproductive health choices. If you have the means, sure, you can hop over to Illinois or another neighboring state for an abortion. But the gap between rights and access — rooted in systemic racism and misogyny, and fueled by white supremacy — respects no borders.

The right to access abortion — particularly for many of our friends and family who are black, Indigenous, people of color, transgender, or gender non-conforming — is a right in name only, no matter which state they live in.

This tale of two worlds is created by who we elect to state houses and who holds the governor’s veto power. It’s the state politicians behind voter suppression, racial gerrymandering, so-called sanctuary cities and bathroom bills that target black and brown voters of all gender identities. Those same politicians are also responsible for passing laws meant to take control of our reproductive health care decisions.

This is not a coincidence. Abortion restrictions are also inherently racist and designed to work in tandem with other oppressive policies to disenfranchise people of color — people like us.

A staggering 480 state abortion restrictions enacted since 2011 effectively amount to abortion bans for people with low incomes, people of color, and young people who cannot afford to travel long distances or pay out-of-pocket for care. The very politicians who built our country’s racist and oppressive systems, and then dismantled inner-city and rural infrastructure, targeted these communities in a game of power and control.

This November, our lives are on the ballot. For people in black and brown communities, this election is critical. And it’s time to send a message to the white-supremacist patriarchy, hellbent on taking away our rights and freedoms: Your time is up. Our collective ability to be equal, live freely, and achieve our dreams starts with our ability to secure reproductive freedom. Yes, that means voting Trump out of office. It also means changing the face of power in our state legislatures and governors’ offices.

That’s why Planned Parenthood advocacy and political organizations and Planned Parenthood supporters are organizing this year at the local level to flip our state legislative and governor seats in favor of reproductive health champions who will actually fight for, and expand, our rights. State leadership is vital to our future. In Illinois, pro-reproductive health majorities enacted laws to protect abortion rights for generations, regardless of who sits in the White House. In Virginia, decades of harmful abortion restrictions are now wiped from the books. This is the world we’re fighting for.

Forget the stereotypes you’ve heard. Latino and Asian Americans, the rapidly growing 43 million eligible voters, recognize that we are stronger when we stand in solidarity with Black and Indigenous people — some of whom face struggles for reproductive freedom that we don’t.

Our ballots will look different in every state, but one thing will be the same: our responsibility. We must be armed with the knowledge of who will fight to protect and expand access to reproductive health care in our state houses, and who won’t. We cannot accept a political system divided into two worlds, in which zip codes, state borders, or skin color determines rights and freedoms. This November, we decide.

Source: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/political-commentary/planned-parenthood-abortion-access-vote-1060691/?fbclid=IwAR1Yv0WxtTYPaFhXapg-0VG3lvnlstcFmfIMBbzM8jSZ4rWDOmvMwfUuCBA

« Previous PageNext Page »