*
*
*
*
I have no control over those ads that appear at this web-site. The sponsored visual presentations are not mine. Thus, I am reluctant to post pictures, memes, or images here at this page, they can become lost amongst the advertising.
Here’s how you can read this Post without unwanted ads: Select All, Copy, then Paste to Notepad or other text application.
*
*
DRAFT … in progress … done.
‘Facebook Memories: 17 May 2024 – Abortion Rights is Body Autonomy’
(17 May 2024)
*
*
Dear Reader:
Preface.
Suck is gone mad – touched mad – deleting posts throughout Faceplop, anything that presents ideology that he opposes.
Notice on posts at my Faceplop page that Suck deleted the URL links and posts that reference to my Faceplop page:
**
This content isn’t available right now
When this happens, it’s usually because the owner only shared it with a small group of people, changed who can see it or it’s been deleted.
**
**
Page not found.
The page you requested was not found.
**
Here are today’s Faceplop Memories of this date at prior years, with selected narrative.
Fear not, Dear Reader. I continue posting current original compositions – I have countless ideas about topics that I have never discussed here or not commented in depth. Posting these recent ‘Memories’ allows me to catch up to what past essays I missed posting here concurrent with Faceplop posts.
– Sharon
*
*
Dear Facebook Reader:
You can read my Slimandme.wordpress.com web-site for the clear Original Posts of these Facebook Memories, no matter if Suck deletes these Original Posts at Facebook.
*
*
(
)
(
)
Sharon Nichols
17 May 2024
Facebook Memories: 17 May 2024
Some posts may not appear here because of their privacy settings
*
*
**
4 of 4:
**
**
This content isn’t available right now
When this happens, it’s usually because the owner only shared it with a small group of people, changed who can see it or it’s been deleted.
**
*
*
Abortion Rights is Body Autonomy
*
(https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=2068940036740184&id=100008726227817&mibextid=Nif5oz)
Sharon Nichols
17 May 2019
*
*
Exactly!
Someone, somewhere, at some time may have opposed abortion, maybe for herself, maybe imposing their authoritarianism against the nation.
Then, circumstance changed. Now, someone in your life needs it – you need it, your wife needs it, your daughter needs it, your sister needs it. How can you face them and deny their Constitutional Right!
*
Additional Resources:
(https://wagatwe.com/blog/racist-origins-pro-life-anti-abortion-political-movement)
*
*
*
1 Comment
*
Mariah Stearns
My mom had an ectopic pregnancy once. If she could have transferred it to her uterus she would, but there was no possibility of that. She had to abort it or it would have killed or horribly crippled her. I’m glad she was allowed to abort it; I love my mom a lot. -Jamie
5yrs
*
*
*
*
1 Share
*
Share #1
Some posts may not appear here because of their privacy settings.
*
*
*
*
11Alive News at 5pm
politics
District attorneys from across metro Atlanta say they won’t prosecute women for abortions
A big concern surrounding Georgia’s “heartbeat” law is whether a woman could be prosecuted for terminating a pregnancy.
Author: Jennifer Bellamy
Published: 12:34 PM EDT May 17, 2019
Updated: 4:50 PM EDT May 20, 2019
District attorneys across metro Atlanta have said they would not prosecute a woman for seeking out an abortion in Georgia under the new “heartbeat” law, which would criminalize abortion after six weeks – when a fetal pulse is detected.
Questions about the legality of the bill have been swift from the medical and legal community about how the law would be enforced. The law makes certain exceptions for cases of rape or incest and if the woman’s life is endangered by the pregnancy.
The Fulton County District Attorney’s Office said it has no plans to prosecute women under the new law. That extends to doctors, nurses and other healthcare providers as well. He intends to follow the Roe v. Wade decision.
Credit: WXIA
“DA Howard has no intention of ever prosecuting a woman under this new law,” said Chris Hopper, director of public affairs for the Fulton County District Attorney’s Office.
OTHER NEWS: How a Georgia mother allowed her boyfriend to impregnate her 10-year-old
The same is true in Gwinnett County.
“… this office will not be prosecuting any women under the new law as long as I’m District Attorney,” said Gwinnett County District Attorney Danny Porter.
Credit: WXIA
Gwinnett County District Attorney Danny Porter
Porter issued the following statement:
“In terms of the what seem to be the most pressing questions, I believe that under the current law it is not possible to prosecute a woman who has an abortion even if it is self-induced for either Murder or Unlawful Abortion. Therefore as a matter of law (as opposed to politics) this office will not be prosecuting any women under the new law as long as I’m District Attorney. As far as abortion providers, There is a very clear statute in existence which is unmodified by HB 481 which describes the circumstances which would lead to prosecution. I started here in 1981 and we have never had such a case in Gwinnett County.
The undecided question in the law is whether the unborn child can be a victim of a crime independent or in conjunction with the mother. Until the courts rule otherwise, I believe that there are possible scenarios where the unborn child could be the victim of a theft or an assault independent of the mother. There are any number of situations where the unborn child could be an additional victim for a crime against the mother.”
RELATED: What to know about new abortion law: Law professor weighs in
Credit: WXIA
Sherry Boston, DeKalb County’s district attorney, echoed the statements of her peers:
“As District Attorney, I took an oath to uphold both the U.S. and GA Constitutions. And our U.S. Supreme Court, in deciding Roe v. Wade, determined that every woman has a fundamental right to privacy which protects their right to choose. I have reviewed HB 481, the related statutes, and case law, and have spoken with members of the Georgia State Legislature. As a result, I have grave concerns about HB 481, its constitutionality, and what it seeks to accomplish. This law obviously sets out to criminalize abortion in the State of Georgia. The question is – who will be held criminally responsible? The law, as written, is either silent or ambiguous, at best, on this question.
“Doctors, nurses, anesthetists, health care providers, office receptionists- virtually anyone who either performs or assists in performing or arranging what is currently a legal medical procedure- could potentially be charged under this statute. Arguably, under such legal theories as Party to a Crime, Conspiracy and/or Solicitation to Commit a Crime, even a friend or ride share driver, if he or she knowingly and voluntarily transported a woman to a hospital or doctor’s office for an illegal abortion under this law, could face prosecution.
“Further, the bill does not specifically exclude the woman receiving an abortion from criminal liability. This could have been easily accomplished by inserting a sentence in this law or by amending other statutes, such as Murder, O.C.G.A. sec. 16-5-1, to address HB 481. While analysis of case law and other statutes, such as Feticide, O.C.G.A. sec. 16-5-80, seems to make clear that a woman cannot be prosecuted for obtaining an abortion, this new law muddies the water and may open the door for this type of prosecution.
“There is no language outlined in HB 481 explicitly prohibiting a District Attorney from bringing criminal charges against anyone and everyone involved in obtaining and performing what is otherwise currently a legal medical procedure as decided by United States Supreme Court opinion and precedent.
“As District Attorney with charging discretion, I will not prosecute individuals pursuant to HB 481 given its ambiguity and constitutional concerns. As a woman and mother, I am concerned about the passage and attempted passage of laws such as this one in Georgia, Alabama, and other states. I believe it is a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her own body and medical care, including, but not limited to, seeking an abortion, as upheld by the United States Supreme Court.”
In Cobb County, District Attorney John Melvin said he would “absolutely not” prosecute a woman for seeking out an abortion — but he didn’t say that he wouldn’t pursue cases against those held liable under law — including doctors, nurses and pharmacists.
“All prosecutors take an oath to enforce the law of the state of Georgia. We certainly have discretion within each law … but to whole say ‘I’m not going to prosecute a law,’ that would be unethical for any prosecutor to take that position,” Melvin said. “So yes, we will take a look at any criminal law violation in Cobb County … but to start saying women could be prosecuted for murder is far from the scope of reality.”
Henry County district attorney Darius Pattillo said called HB 481 “unconstitutional.”
Credit: Henry County District Attorney’s Office
“HB 481 is unconstitutional because it is contrary to the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, which is presently the law of the land. This office will not prosecute any woman for decisions regarding her own personal health, nor any physician or other healthcare professional, under HB 481,” Pattillo said in a statement to 11Alive.
RELATED HEADLINES |
‘Ozark’ star Jason Bateman comes out against Georgia abortion law
Gov. Kemp cancels ‘Georgia Film Day’ in LA amidst abortion law controversy
3 big differences between Alabama, Georgia abortion bills
‘Along Came The Devil’ producers to donate sequel profits to pro-choice causes
© 2019 WXIA-TV. All Rights Reserved.
*
*
*
*
*
*
(https://wagatwe.com/blog/racist-origins-pro-life-anti-abortion-political-movement)
Wagatwe Wanjuki
The little-known racist origins of the ‘pro-life’ abortion movement
JUL 10
Madame Restell, née Ann LohmanSource: Wikimedia Commons
Source: Wikimedia Commons
Fundamentalist Christians and [the KKK] are pretty close, fighting for God and country. Someday we may all be in the trenches together in the fight against the slaughter of unborn children. — John Burt, 1994 New York Times interview
Reversing Roe v. Wade goes against the will of the people. A recent Quinnipiac poll shows that a clear majority support the Supreme Court ruling ensuring a patient’s access to abortion care. That, of course, won’t stop opponents to the measure from ruling by minority; it’s exactly what the so-called “pro-lifers” want.
Rule by minority has increasingly become the Republican’s modus operandi; gerrymandering, voter suppression, and congressional loopholes show they are not shy about staying in power by any means necessary. Now we’re seeing what’s possible when a man like Donald Trump embraces it as the leader of the power. Trump has not hesitated to embrace white nationalists and give racists power—just look at Steve Bannon, Stephen Miller, and Jeff Sessions—which is exactly why it’s prime time for Roe v. Wade to come up on the chopping block.
It’s no coincidence that the biggest national threat to abortion rights since Roe is happening under such a racist government. Have you ever wondered why the “pro-life” movement is so … white? Or perhaps you’ve noticed that they seem incapable of not being racist whenever they pretend to care about Black people to further their extreme agenda.
You’re not alone. It turns out that the pro-life movement has been very good about hiding its racist origins. That’s not just because white people tend to be uncomfortable and avoidant when talking about race. It’s because it also exposes the true goal of the movement, which makes their initially confusing hypocrisy incredibly clear.
Abortion restrictions have always been political—and about race
During much of the 19th century, abortion was unregulated and business was booming. The industry was doing so well that one famous provider, Madame Restell, invested in one of New York City’s first luxury apartment buildings with her husband. The white, middle-class women who could afford abortions were having more control of their bodies and thus having fewer children. This was all happening while the United States was also getting more Catholic and Jewish immigrants.
The fears of white women increasingly turning away from doing their “duty” to bear children coupled with xenophobia compelled powerful white men to spring into action. Under the guise of wanting to require a medical license to perform abortions, the American Medical Association (AMA) ran a successful campaign to ban abortion care and put the decision to make exceptions completely in their hands. How did they succeed? They appealed to the racist little hearts of Anglo-Saxon politicians.
Back then, “pro-life” racism wasn’t as subtle. The authors of “Abortion, Race, and Gender in Nineteenth-Century America” in the American Sociological Review wrote that “physicians argued that middle-class, Anglo-Saxon married women were those obtaining abortions, and that their use of abortion to curtail childbearing threatened the Anglo-Saxon race.” Take this excerpt from a book by Dr. Augustus K. Gardner from 1870, for example:
Infanticide is no new crime. Savages have existed in all times, and abortions and destruction of children at and subsequent to birth have been practiced among all barbarous nations of antiquity … The savages of past ages were not better than the women who commit such infamous murders to-day, to avoid the cares, the expense or the duty of nursing and tending a child.
Here we see how framing abortion as murder came from racist propaganda. Dr. Gardner talked about barbaric peoples—Indians, Greeks, and Chinese, for example—that supposedly partook in infanticide. He uses this in an attempt to shame women from seeking abortions, calling them no better than these “savages.” Political anti-abortion rhetoric began with this message: abortion is for other people. Non-white people.
Yet even back then, there was no consensus among conservatives or Christians about abortion’s morality. However, the disproportionate amount of power that rich white men had in the country—as doctors and politicians—allowed this minority to execute its will on the people (sound familiar?).
The truth about conservative hate of Margaret Sanger—and contraception
Margaret Sanger (source: Library of Congress)
While the 19th century racists succeeded in getting a nationwide abortion ban, that pesky desire from women for autonomy kept rearing its head. It’s almost as if you keep oppressing people, they will eventually want more rights—no matter how hard you try!
No wonder they hated Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. She published a feminist magazine in 1914 that advocated for reproductive freedom—exactly what racist white men didn’t want embraced by women. The smears and attacks against her continue today as conservatives try to paint her as the racist. The truth is that she was a proponent of eugenics, but was staunchly against its use for racist means. At the Jewish Woman’s Archive, Open Society Institute fellow Ellen Chasler explains:
She distinguished between individual applications of eugenic principles and cultural ones and spoke out against immigration prohibitions that promoted ethnic or racial stereotypes with a biological rationale. She saw birth control as an instrument of social justice, not of social control.”
In fact, Sanger worked with activists of color like W.E.B. Du Bois and Japanese feminist Shizue Kato—people conservatives today would undoubtedly disparage. Dr. Martin Luther King even once said, “There is a striking kinship between our [civil rights] movement and Margaret Sanger’s early efforts in “Family Planning—A Special and Urgent Concern.”
While there’s no excuse for Sanger’s support of the eugenics movement, it does show that the fact was distorted by a white racist movement that undoubtedly has people who would agree with her eugenic statements today.
Even in Sanger’s time, white supremacists still couldn’t agree on whether to support birth control or not. Some saw it as a possible means to keep “undesirables” from reproducing, while other had fears that Anglo-Saxon white women would embrace it too much and significantly lower their birth rate.
Tools of white supremacy: from school segregation to abortion
Abortion became a political tool of racist white evangelicals as a response to the Black civil rights movement of the 1960’s. Displeased with forced school integration and other signs of Black people being treated like human beings, the founders of the modern anti-choice movement sought to find an issue to mobilize the conservative base. With enough grassroots support, white evangelical leaders could get people who’d Make America Explicitly Racist again in power and protect its white people as they saw fit.
One of these leaders is preacher Jerry Falwell, the founder of Liberty University: he hated Dr. King and all this civil rights expansion. In response to Brown v. Board of Education, he created private, white-only Christian schools to try and preserve segregation. It worked for a while, but the government started cracking down on the schools explicitly made just for white children.
In hopes of reversing this wave, evangelicals had thrown their weight behind President Jimmy Carter, a Democrat and fellow evangelical Christian, for the 1976 election. Unfortunately for Falwell and friends, Carter wasn’t also a racist. Under Carter’s watch, the crackdown on white schools continued.
Activist Paul Weyrich had long suggested using abortion as their political issue. Now that school segregation had failed, leaders like Falwell and Focus on the Family’s Dr. James Dobson agreed to join forces to usher in a new era in white supremacist political activism: the pro-life movement.
While Roe v. Wade was already years old, they tested using the “pro-life” political stance as a way to get candidates who’d do their racist bidding in office during the midterm elections—and it worked. They won three Senate seats and a governorship thanks, in part, to low turnout from Democrats and high energy from the white evangelicals. They found a winning issue and took it to the national stage next.
How racism brought Republicans and white evangelicals together
President Reagan and Jerry Falwell in the Oval Office.
Evangelical leaders tried to influence Carter to seek a constitutional amendment to overturn Roe v. Wade. He refused, so they looked to the other party. The Republican Party’s sexism dovetailed nicely with racist anti-abortion policies and support for such an amendment was made a part of the party’s platform. And thus, the GOP officially adopted the language proposed by the power-hungry white evangelicals and officially became the “pro-life” party with candidate Ronald Reagan as the leader.
Reagan was a good bet. He had name recognition with his acting career before entering politics. And, like Falwell and friends, Reagan lamented the advancement of the civil rights for Black people. Reagan had no problem catering to racists, pushing the “welfare queen” myth and calling the Voting Rights Act “humiliating to the South.” Oh, and he was endorsed by the KKK—twice.
At first glance, Reagan seemed to be the least likely ally for the anti-choice movement. When he was California’s governor, he signed the country’s least restrictive abortion access bill in the country. Carter had a documented history of being anti-abortion, both in his personal and political life. However, it’s Carter’s refusal to bend to the political will of the powerful white evangelical men that was seen as the biggest liability.
Reagan’s landslide win solidified the religious right’s political strength. Falwell, Dobson, and Weyrich had succeeded in making their racist political goals viable enough to get millions to vote for their preferred candidate who’d get rid of abortion and keep the brown and Black people from taking over. Since then, the political power of white evangelicals in the United States has only gotten stronger.
Today’s political mess in perspective
There’s a reason why the pro-life advocates and #alllivesmatter crowd has been silent at best about the mistreatment of children at the border at the hands of the administration. They’re not the members of a human rights movement; it’s just what they say to convince clueless white people. The pro-life movement is white nationalist campaign that will use any messaging or backward logic necessary to achieve their genocidal goals.
This puts white evangelicals’ nearly unwavering support of Trump into perspective. They put up with his very un-Christian behavior because he’s a very effective vessel for their racist political goals. It is increasingly clear that the goal of the pro-life leaders is to dominate our politics; they don’t want true democracy. Instead, a few white men want to exploit the system as much as possible until they can once again live in a country where women don’t control their bodies, immigration doesn’t happen, and people of color are not truly citizens.
Originally written for DailyKos.com
RACE
abortion,
segregation
FACEBOOKTWITTERLINKEDINREDDITTUMBLRPINTEREST 21 LIKES
Wagatwe Wanjuki is a writer, educator, and award-winning anti-rape activist with over a decade’s experience in digital media and sexual assault prevention.
She helps empower survivors and their communities to take better action in preventing and responding to gender-based violence.
Book her for an event here.
JOIN MY NEWSLETTER
Post Archive
Sep 11 Education Department touts cost-saving measures of unchecked sexual assault
May 5 Camille Cosby’s statement about Bill Cosby’s conviction holds no water
Related Posts
Dr. Angela Y. Davis quotes on race and rape culture
JAN 26
Dr. Angela Y. Davis quotes on race and rape culture
NOV 2
The manipulative rhetoric of “cancel culture”
The accelerating commodification of Blackness on social media
SEP 30
The accelerating commodification of Blackness on social media
Let’s keep in touch! Join my newsletter
Enter your email
NEWSLETTER
MY TEDX TALK
*
*
*
*
*
*
**
You’re All Caught Up
Check back tomorrow to see more of your memories!
**
*
*
**
*
*
Dear Reader:
Thank you for visiting this post today. Please return for the next episode.
Thank you for reading my comments, for viewing and reading comments from other resources.
Thank you to the Resources who contribute to this page.
Acknowledgement and credit goes to those who create their news reporting, social media content, essays, and images provided for you here.
Please take note of the specific and the random memes and screen print images that may be attached to this article, that I present throughout this web-site. They add to the essence of this post.
Please visit those references when I add them to these essays. The contributors work hard and tirelessly to bring about sense from the non-sense.
These posts being Public, I permit you to Share these contents at your own web-site or Social Media, with appropriate crediting.
*
Thank you to T-central.blogspot.com for listing my ‘Slim and Me’ web-site with them. Please check them out for plenty of good resources.
(https://T-central.blogspot.com)
*
(https://www.BeHumanCampaign834662950771/)
(https://www.facebook.com/BeHumanCampaign)
BeHuman Campaign
*
This ‘SlimAndMe’ web-site is my primary Internet presence.
*
You can occasionally read an alternate, abbreviated version of these posts at my social media page.
*
Additional Resources:
1.
Crooked Drumpf skimmed from the ‘9 / 11’ relief fund.
‘Pure Evil’: Report On Trump Administration Draining Fund For FDNY’s 9/11 Responders Draws Outrage
Lisette Voytko
Forbes Staff
Senior Entertainment Reporter
Sep 11, 2020, 08:53am EDT
Updated Sep 12, 2020, 12:00pm EDT
TOPLINE A New York Daily News scoop published Thursday revealed that the Trump administration has siphoned around $4 million from the New York City Fire Department’s fund for its September 11 first responders, drawing outrage on the 19th anniversary of the attacks, but the U.S. Treasury says the money was diverted because of “delinquent debt” owed by New York City to the federal government.
Attacks World Trade Center
Firefighters work beneath the destroyed mullions, [+]
AP PHOTO/MARK LENNIHAN
KEY FACTS
The funds are part of the FDNY World Trade Center Health Program, which was established by the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010, a bill passed by Congress that provides healthcare to first responders who have suffered a range of illnesses from exposure to dust and smoke at Ground Zero.
“TRUMP DOESN’T ONLY HATE VETERANS, HE HATES FIRST RESPONDER HEROES,” tweeted actress Debra Messing in reaction to the Daily News report.
Fred Guttenberg, father of Parkland school shooting victim Jamie Guttenberg, said he was “F—KING P—-ED” about the report, because his brother died of cancer from 9/11.
“From the administration whose identity is built on claims of honoring first responders,” Julie Cohen, director of the RBG documentary, wrote on Twitter.
“This doesn’t surprise me at all,” Army veteran and advocate Paul Rieckoff wrote on Twitter. “Trump did NOTHING to push for the extension of #Zadroga last year.”
“We are also working with Congressman King and others to examine any potential authorities to provide relief in this case to support our nation’s 9/11 heroes,” the Treasury spokesperson. told Forbes, but could not provide any examples of how they would do it, and did not have a timeline.
CRUCIAL QUOTE
“Here we have sick World Trade Center-exposed firefighters and EMS workers, at a time when the city is having difficult financial circumstances due to COVID-19, and we’re not getting the money we need to be able to treat these heroes,” FDNY Chief Medical Officer David Prezant told the Daily News.
CHIEF CRITIC
“Pure evil,” tweeted Dr. Dena Grayson, a medical expert who specializes in ebola and other viruses.
*
2.
This is Crooked Drumpf’s Amerika.
(https://www.facebook.com/414507242439358/posts/732780587278687/)
DNC War Room
1 Sep 2020
Shared with Public
*
*
*
*
*
*
Slim and Me 