Screen Shot 2018-12-16 at 12.31.37 PM
Your host, PM 'Papa' Carpenter


  • ***


« Hey, hey, Donald J., how many kids will you kill today .. or tomorrow? | Main | To an American minority, we are North Korea »

May 15, 2019


The Daily Beast ( reported that "The bill’s sponsor, Sen. Clyde Chambliss (R), acknowledged in his opening statement that he was not a doctor, nor was he entirely clear on when a woman can know she is pregnant.

“I’m not trained medically so I don’t know the proper medical terminology and timelines,” Chambliss said. “But from what I’ve read, what I’ve been told, there’s some period of time before you can know a woman is pregnant.”

The senator then used that claim to argue that under the bill, a woman could end her pregnancy as long as she did not know she was pregnant."

Which means he has inadvertently argued for making Plan-B completely legal.

At this rate women are going to have to resort to the only choice they have left. And that would involve men being required to take "no" for an answer.

The likely reason Alabama has done something this extreme is so it will go to the Supreme Court where they're waiting like spiders to undo choice. My guess is this is all a big political maneuver. They've been angling for this since the 70s and they've never had a better chance to make their move.

I'd be more impressed with their sanctity of life proclamations if they weren't always trying to take away insurance provided birth control, (but never go after the Viagra!), trying to defund everything that helps children in any way. You know the children already here.

This is all about women. Babies are just the tool. They fear our lady parts. :-)

This piece of legislation, like the more than 400 others teed up in red states, is designed to go directly to SCOTUS. Interestingly, support for Roe has spiked sharply upward at the same time these draconian laws have been passed, and especially since McConnell engineered a GOP takeover of SCOTUS.

The GOP is rapidly approaching the same kind of moment that LBJ faced when he signed the 1964 Civil Rights bill. He did it, knowing he would lose the South to the GOP for a generation at least. Given the recent outpouring of support for Roe, I suspect that if SCOTUS overturns it, they will hand most of the country to the Democrats for the foreseeable future. I wonder if the five conservative justices are willing to do that. Certainly no white, educated young woman will be voting Republican following an overturn of Roe.

That having been said, I wish that Roe had been decided on the basis of the 14th Amendment rather than the 4th. The privacy argument is inherently weaker than an argument based on equality before the law. Ruth Bader Ginsberg saw it this way, and while at the ACLU had a case all ready to argue before SCOTUS, when it was withdrawn explicitly because the Solicitor-General of the US (a former professor of Ginsberg's at Harvard Law) knew she would win, so he wrote a letter and got the case withdrawn. See

They accuse women of "killing" babies in the womb, but that's only because they prefer to wait for them to be born and kill them slowly over many years.

I've always been told they would never really overturn Roe v Wade for fear of losing the religious vote afterwards. They got what they wanted, so the anti choice voters can now rest on their laurels. Kind of like how the NRA is now falling victim to their own success with the election of Trump. But now I don't think that overturning Roe v Wade will stop them. They will just move on to the next targeted group of people who have no power. They're insatiable.

Anne, they will stop when they are stopped.

Why has it taken this long? Look at all the Republican judges appointed in the past 46 years. Why? Because we will see a comparable backlash as we did when in '64 as LJB signed the Civil Rights Act and as he handed a pen to a young aid and said, "I've just handed the South over to the GOP for the next 40 years."

I'm thinking back when a few years ago Michael Moore urged people to boycott voting, as an act of protest. Great, great strategy.

Thanks for bringing up that ACLU case. I wanted to educate myself and I found the gist of it in a New Yorker article by Jill Lepore:

"She next hoped to bring to the Supreme Court a case called Struck v. Secretary of Defense. When Captain Susan Struck became pregnant, she decided to have the baby, but Air Force policy meant that she would lose her job unless she had an abortion. Ginsburg prepared to argue Struck’s case on equal-protection grounds: since no Air Force policy barred men from having children, the government was discriminating against Struck on the basis of sex. In choosing a case that would advance a desperately needed argument about reproductive autonomy, Ginsburg had cleverly selected one in which the litigant had chosen to have a baby, rather than to end a pregnancy, so that the Court’s attention would be focussed on the equality claims of women (and not on the politics of abortion). But the Air Force changed its policy and, in 1972, at the urging of then Solicitor General Erwin Griswold, the case was dismissed, a decision that had profound consequences: the following year, the Court ruled on Roe v. Wade instead, and struck down anti-abortion legislation not on the ground of equal protection but on the ground of a much weaker constitutional doctrine, the right to privacy."

As Lepore described it, Roe was a "rickety wooden plank...likely to rot".


I remember Frank Schaeffer, who was one of the leaders of that whole movement back in the day til he became disgusted by the Right he helped build said that the whole thing is a big money making vehicle for the Evangelical machine (and for the politicians who count on the Evangelical vote.)

But yes, if they succeed they'll just go to their next target. Hate sells. Power is tasty.

Do you have a link to the Lepore article?

Am I missing something here. Roe v wade is bad law. Rickety bound to rot. If overturned it will simply go back to the states, where it should have been decided. I know mentioning “ States Rights” freaks people out. But that is where it should have been decided. The state legislatures hate the idea of taking a stand on abortion ,well except for Alabama.

States Right: you mean like Bush v. Gore?

Well, it is rickety, being based on 4th Amendment issues related to privacy rather than 14th Amendment guarantees of equal protection. See the note to Freesia and here response. If Roe is overturned, it will not be the end of the battle, and the next time SCOTUS is involved it's likely to be an equal protection argument, which will be far harder to rule against or overturn in the future. Frankly, I can't see how any educated, single woman would choose to live in Alabama. Let the good ole boys deal with a shortage of wiminfolk. Perhaps they should read Aristophanes.

Here you go:

This "issue" will never see the SC. They don't want it.

The impetus for this and other actions like it would be two things:

And Va. Gov. Ralph Northam.


No way people will let that go by under the phony moniker of "choice".

Please stop listening to those RW talking points-- women don't choose to have late term abortions lightly, and doctors (save the jailed one in Philly) don't intentionally murder born babies. Late term abortions are
less than .01% of all those performed and are
specifically for babies with severe medical issues (they will not survive even with extraordinary medical care).
As far as I'm concerned, if you weren't born with a womb your opinion doesn't hold much sway.

PM is spot on with his assessment of this issue which is so personal and sensitive to all who have been affected. The idea that a group of men can dictate policy on the rights of women is regressive and plain wrong. Abortion is always going to be an emotional debate with strong feelings on both sides. There are many grey areas and we must have a sophisticated and nuanced response. Diktats and outrageous scaremongering are not helpful.

Perhaps the issue is sorting itself out.

Perhaps you should share your devastating wisdom with the anti-abortion state legislatures, which, "Since 2011, politicians have passed more than 400 state abortion restrictions that shame, pressure, and punish women who decide to have an abortion. People in these states are already traveling hundreds of miles, crossing state lines, and waiting weeks to get an abortion, and that is if they can access services at all." (

Almost every one of was them designed explicitly to ultimately force the Supreme Court to revisit Roe.

Breitbart News? Seriously?

You're probably right, Anne. The God-fearing, love filled "Christians" can always find another group of people to focus their hatred upon. Probably the LGBQT community next.

Are you surprised?

The next logical step is for the powerful men to insist that women have children. That’s what they’re for..unfortunately, I’m not joking.

I think the next step is every young girl being required to register her uterus with the government on the first day of her first period.

Are you really saying "right-wing lies about infanticide made us do it!"??

Ladies, I think most of us agree that infanticide is a bad idea. But since I don’t have a uterus ,when does the “clump of cells” become a human ? I do struggle with this, frankly the heartbeat bill seems reasonable. The morning after pill seems viable. One of my Labs aborted for some reason after 40 days. I buried 6 Yellow Labrador Retriever puppies. They weren’t clumps of cells.

You do realize that in almost every single category, from Prekindergarten, through high school, through college, through law school, through medical school and much, much more: the girls are crushing it. The boys are behind and growing behind still. The data are almost entirely all in one direction. The dying gasps of the right-wing women-haters are hardly representative of our country or the Western democracies.

Oddly enough, in the Bible, not until the baby has survived birth by a month. And the Bible also provides a magic potion that will abort fetuses, providing it's force-fed to a woman by her husband when he suspects her of adultery.

Mrs. Betty Bowers, America's Best Christian, has a video that explains the actual OT position on the unborn.

As someone with a degree in Theology from a very conservative Midwestern Bible seminary, I can affirm that she's correct here. I can also affirm that we never looked at these passages, and certainly didn't consider their implications.

The Buddhists believe the soul does not fully incarnate into the body until around one hundred days after birth. Catholic doctrine has the soul fully incarnating into the body at conception. The Tibetan Book of the Dead believes the soul does not fully unravel from the body until about three days after death. I don't know the answers to these questions. I do know, twenty-four years ago when my thirty two-week moderately premature twin sons died, that I was convinced their souls had not left their bodies for a while. (After a while I believe they did depart.) But that’s just my own experience.

Whatever the answers are to these ultimate questions, in my case because I do not possess a uterus, I defer to those that do. I think at this point in human history, it seems on most things the more we defer to women the better. I keep thinking of the smart male theologians who believe that the women will save The Church.

"The idea that a group of men can dictate policy on the rights of women is regressive and plain wrong."

Ironically, as a woman, it's one of the reasons why I am pro choice even though I don't know quite how I feel about abortion. I only know that another woman (or tragically a young girl) might be faced with an impossible situation either by health or by personal horror, and if she needs to make this choice then I don't want anyone, male or female, standing in her way. And I want her safe and cared for. I don't want to dictate anything to this person. I just want her to be okay.

Ok here is one vote for infanticide, Your name is descriptive. . I’m still against it , though the killem now or killem later idea has some merit. Just how do we decide who gets it. Bit non uterine votes don’t count. So we be back at square one. Still trying to find the article about the legislator who said black folks should be able to get an abortion anytime they want. Because why ? Maybe it was from the onion. Maybe it got disappeared because she was a lefty and said what she really thought.

Anne, you have a knack for cutting to the chase. I love it. You cheer me up.

This is precisely why some men are intent on taking us back to the past. It's a backlash against the rise of women in society. Honestly, this abortion bill has very little to do with protecting the unborn and everything to do with putting women back in their box.

These woman hating men should never be allowed in any woman's box again for the rest of their miserable lies.


Anne, I am acquainted with two men who are vocal in their opposition to abortion. One is on his own after living a life which he admits was selfish. He also admits to pressurising two of his (many) partners into having an abortion because, at the time, he thought the world was an awful place and he wouldn't support them. He has changed his mind. Don't do what I did, it's all wrong. He's holding younger men to account and asking them to take responsibility in a way that he wasn't prepared admitting his bad conduct he feels free to criticise those who want to do the same thing that he felt entitled to do.The second example is a man who didn't want children at all but got one "accidentally". These days, he is devoted to his daughter but she doesn't wish to have children. I think it's called karma.

The hyprocicy is writ large in the bill itself:

Chambliss, responding to the IVF argument from Smitherman, cites a part of the bill that says it applies to a pregnant woman. "The egg in the lab doesn’t apply. It’s not in a woman. She’s not pregnant."

The comments to this entry are closed.