By Bernie on 06 Mar 2006
Back in 1964, almost a decade before Roe v Wade, I was 19 years old and despite precautions I got a girl pregnant. We were both beginning our lives and neither of us wanted to get married or have children or spend the rest of our lives together.
I asked my mother if she knew anyone who could perform an abortion safely. She told me that in Poland, many women knew how to abort or force a miscarriage using a rubber catheter tube. She drew some diagrams and showed me how to insert it into the proper orifices and what to do afterwards.
I don't have to tell you I was nervous as hell, but we lived in a barbaric era when the government prevented its citizens from receiving proper medical treatment, so what could I do? Anyway, it was a success. I went to study Math/Physics in Israel the next year and I saw her again many years later. She's had 3 healthy children since.
Now again, sad to say, we seem to be drifting back into barbarity. So for women in South Dakota I am supplying links to where you can find info on how to do abortions yourselves.
Do-it-yourself procedures are discussed in kuro5hin
I suspect that underground clinics will quickly sprout up so just ask around. But read the material above so that you have some idea of what's going on. I think it is time for all women to now rethink how they intend to vote in the next election. Even though I think Republicans are better for the War on Terror, there is no point in defending a country where women are again treated like Muslim women.
abortion access tells us:
Today, more than half of the world’s women live in countries where abortion is restricted by law. Because of these worldwide conditions, almost 20 million illegal abortions take place each year, many of them unsafe because they are carried out in unsanitary settings by inexperienced practitioners or by desperate women themselves. As a result, more than 70,000 women die annually from complications of abortion, and hundreds of thousands suffer serious long-term health consequences. Attempts at abortion that involve placing sharp or dirty objects through the cervix into the uterus are particularly threatening to women’s health because of the risks of perforating the uterus and/or causing infection. Because using misoprostol does not involve putting anything into the vagina, it carries less risk of infection or damage to internal organs than other forms of self-induced abortion. Although misoprostol causes bleeding and cramping, it may be the best way that women abroad and in the US know of to try to end an unwanted pregnancy when other avenues for ending an unwanted pregnancy are unaffordable, unavailable, or illegal.
Here is how to induce an abortion with mifepristone from the National Institutes of Health and is generally safer than surgical abortion or delivery. The oral form is safer than the vaginal suppository, and in the first trimester is safe to do at home.
I expect drug dealers to be selling this in South Dakota as well. This is not 1965 and abortion foes will not reduce one abortion by making it illegal.
South Dakota needs to set up fund-raising sites such as Women's Medical Fund in Wisconsin to raise money to help poor women get abortions.
thinkwoman has some cautions about do-it-yourself abortions.
Of course, all the information above is for entertainment purposes only, please consult with medical professionals before doing anything. This disclaimer of course is worthless in South Dakota since it will be illegal to get professional medical advice there.
SFGate asks: "Family values"?
The Republican-controlled legislature of South Dakota's sweeping new law banning abortion in the conservative state also protects rapists' rights. Now, men who impregnate girls or women against their will - even fathers who rape their daughters - are almost guaranteed to become dads.
South Dakota children celebrate their
state's new law protecting rapists
Photo Credit: TheAge
Foreign news media are tracking with interest the social and political implications of the radical right's campaign against abortion in the U.S. From today's breaking news reports:
» France's Le Monde notes that South Dakota's Republican governor, Mike Rounds, signed off on the new law just two days before the celebration of International Women's Day, which is today. (Separate Le Monde news article about the festivities here.) The French daily also notes that Mississippi, Georgia, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee and Indiana plan to follow South Dakota's lead. The religious right's goal: to force the Supreme Court to reconsider its ruling in the 1973 Roe vs. Wade case that legalized abortion in the U.S. The conservatives' big wish: that the court will overturn that historic decision.
Spanish daily El País lists the nine Justices:
John Roberts (Chief Justice; born 1955, designated September 2005 by George W. Bush);
John Paul Stevens (born 1920; designated September 2005 by Gerald Ford);
Antonin Scalia (born 1936; designated 1986 by Ronald Reagan);
Anthony Kennedy (born 1937; designated 1988 by Reagan);
David Souter (born 1939; designated 1990 by papa George Bush);
Clarence Thomas (born 1948; designated 1991 by papa George Bush);
Ruth Bader Ginsburg (born 1933; designated 1993 Bill Clinton);
Stephen Breyer (born 1938; designated 1994 by Clinton);
Samuel Alito (born 1950; designated 2006 by George W. Bush).
And notes: "of the nine justices, seven were appointed by conservative presidents." It adds that the current court is distinguished "by a majority of Catholics," members of "a religion that is practiced by a quarter of the [U.S.] population. Analyzed in terms of their [past] decisions, five of the justices appear to be conservatives and four liberals. It's the first time in 20 years that the court has leaned [so far] to the right.
Here is South Dakota's suggestion on how to avoid unwanted pregnancy:
aggressive voice daily doesn't think it will reach the Supreme Court:
A high number of conservatives are hoping (and assuming) that the new South Dakota abortion ban will force the Supreme Court to revisit the Roe decision sometime next term.Captain Ed wrongly asserts, "Without a doubt, the Supreme Court will not be able to avoid the reconsideration of Roe." South Dakota's blatant defiance of the Supreme Court's recognition of the right to abortion does not necessarily have to reach the Supreme Court anytime soon.
The Court has already agreed to hear the challenge to partial-birth abortion next term and may not wish to consider the broad constitutionality of abortion again. South Dakota's law will likely be struck down by a district court (as it should, because it must follow Supreme Court precedent) and a subsequent circuit court of appeals. At that point the Supreme Court could simply refuse to hear it for themselves and allow the lower court's ruling to remain valid.
Four justices of the Supreme Court must decide to hear a case before a writ of certiorari is granted. When South Dakota's law is inevitably killed at the appeals level it is highly unlikely that any of the five justices who currently support Roe will wish to bring the ban back. The four remaining justices could remain to hear it but a wiser strategy would be for them to wait for one of the liberals to be replaced by another Bush appointment.
Mexican Immigrant May Face Two Years in Prison for Self-Induced Abortion Under South Carolina Law
Abortion's Silenced Legacy
Incidence of Induced Abortion in Southern Ghana
Profile of Induced Abortions in Women from an Urban Slum of Delhi
Rescue America and Operation Rescue about Non-Violence - Addendum
Induced Abortion in Latin America: Social, Cultural, and Technical Aspects
Anyone may republish this article for non-commercial use without asking my permission. I make it easy, see details here.
comments powered by Disqus