Skip to content


Oh, right?

I felt entirely alone’: comedian Grace Campbell on the aftermath of her abortion

Well, there was one less around.

When Grace Campbell decided to terminate her pregnancy, she felt relief at being able to exercise a right so many women had fought for. But nothing prepared her for the depression that came after. Here, the comedian reflects on the physical and emotional toll

Ho Hum.

An excellent exampole of a male and female difference. She’s looking for confirmation, assurance, empathy. Men are saying, well, don’t do that then. Not all men, obviously, but that’s a v male response to this all the same.

How extreme is this?

The risk of stating plainly what Idaho argued at the US supreme court on Wednesday morning is that it is so sadistic and extreme that people might not believe you. Idaho has one of the most restrictive abortion bans in the country. Prohibiting all abortions at any stage of gestation, with no exceptions for rape or incest, the Idaho law allows doctors to perform abortions in cases where the life – but not “merely” the health – of the pregnant woman is at risk.

We can only kill this one person if by not doing so we kill this other person.

A singular version of the trolley problem.


Well, yep?

How sick do they have to get?’ Doctors brace for US supreme court hearing on emergency abortions

The piece opens standard American journalism school style. Personal story from a participant.

Personally I absolutely hate this style but that’s what they’re taught, that’s what wins prizes.

Still, the background, sure. We’re back in this battleground of competing rights. That of the child/baby/foetus/blastocyst to not be killed and that of the mother to not be mother/not die herself. As we’ve got laws – and always have had too – about where those two sets of rights switch from the babbie must be born to switch on that vacuum cleaner then we’ve got to have legal judgements about where that switch is.

Pretty much everyone – even The Pope – will agree that treating the ectopic pregnancy to save the mother’s life, even if that does mean the death of the embryo (note the very precise formulation the Catholic Church uses there, treat and if as a byproduct is OK, directly not) is moral if regrettable.

Defining “emergency” as “the bird’s feeling a bit peaky” would lead us to where we are in Britain today, effectively on demand even as that’s not, at all, what the law says.

So, yes, there are going to mneed to be lgeal rulings.

That Roe and Dobbs problem

The Arizona supreme court ruled Tuesday to let a law banning almost all abortions in the state go into effect, a decision that could curtail abortion access in the US south-west and could make Arizona one of the biggest battlefields in the 2024 electoral fight over abortion rights.

The justices said Arizona could enforce a 1864 near-total abortion ban, first passed before Arizona became a state, that went unenforced for decades after the US supreme court legalized abortion nationwide in the 1973 decision Roe v Wade. However, the justices also ruled to hold off on requiring the state to enforce the ban for 14 days, in order to allow advocates to ask a lower court to pause it again.

Precisely, and exactly, because abortion became a constitutional right – and then didn’t – the 50 year process of working through the debate on the subject, the revision of all those old laws, didn’t happen.

Therefore the US is going to go through all of that 50 years later than everyone else.



What horrifies me is that any parliamentarian should want to decriminalise the fatal poisoning or dismemberment of unborn babies that are so well developed that they could survive outside the womb. No amount of sugar coating this can remove the repellent reality of what – if the law is changed in the way certain MPs want – could end up happening.

Ms. Creasy, for example.

The extremism, the extremism

Donald Trump backs abortion ban in ‘later months’ — but says states can decide
Former president rejects nationwide ban and supports exceptions for rape and incest.

For vicious ideologues like me this is far too weak tea. But it’s around and about what the general population thinks is the right apprpach. It’s also what the law is. Abortion is not a right in the Constitution, nor is it one of the reserved powers of the Federal Government. It is, therefore, a matter for the States.

The Donald is the reasonable and sensible one here. Who saw that one coming?


No watering-down, no new red tape: it’s time to fully decriminalise abortion in England and Wales
Stella Creasy

So any bird should be allowed to kill any kid – right up to the point of birth itself – for any reason or none?

Might that not be considered something of an extreme position?

Also, fuck off.


A rightwing Christian lobby group that wants abortion to be banned has forged ties with an adviser to the prime minister and is drawing up ­policy briefings for politicians.

The UK branch of the US-based Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) has more than doubled its spending since 2020 and been appointed a stakeholder in a parliamentary group on religious freedoms in a role that grants it direct access to MPs.

The ADF’s efforts to boost its UK influence are revealed as part of an Observer analysis that shows a surge in activity within the wider anti-­abortion movement.

Ahead of a historic vote on abortion later this spring, in which MPs will vote on a law that would abolish the criminal offence associated with a woman ending her own pregnancy in England and Wales, several anti-abortion campaign groups have expanded their teams, ramped up advertising and coordinated mass letter-writing campaigns targeting MPs.

People campaign about upcoming change in the law. Where would democracy be if this sort of thing catches on?

Just to comment on the deep background knowleedge displayed here

While Republicans are split on the decision about embryos after a number of hospitals have ended their popular IVF programs out of fear of prosecution, others, like Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley agreed that “embryos, to me, are babies.”

This, apparently, is theocracy.

Hmm, might be something that folk aren’t going to put up with and all that. Could be something you agree with, something you don’t.

It’s also straight down the line, middle of the road, opinion of the world’s largest centrally organised religion – The Catholic Church.

As I say, agree with or not, it’s not actually an extreme position at all.

Don’t think it works this way

In a world that simply trusted women, abortion itself would be less common, I think, because more trust equals more empowerment and therefore fewer limitations: women would be free to obtain birth control at low cost and without a prescription, a key issue that has been somewhat overlooked amid the heated battles over abortion. Add some straightforward sex education that teaches women from an early age how fertility works — as opposed to the fearmongering version in which pregnancy can happen anytime, anywhere, just from being in the same room as a sperm — and you would get an informed, empowered population capable of avoiding unintended pregnancies.

Birth control is more widely available than it used to be. Vastly cheaper. Technically very much more effective too. Sex education is very much more widely available and so on.

The abortion rate has leapt over the past century that this has all happened too.

I very strongly suspect that there’s a Jevon’s Paradox here. The elasticity of demand for sex with respect to its price – the potential pregnancy thing – is such that reduce the odds of the pregnancy per unit of sex and you’ll increase the units of sex by so much more that total conception rates rise.

Well, maybe, anyway.

It’s certainly not obvious that more birth control and more sex education has correlated with fewer abortions now, is it?

You know my opinion on all this

Women in England and Wales accused of having illegal abortions have been held in custody after pregnancy loss, had their children taken into care and been saddled with debt, an expert has said.

Dr Jonathan Lord, a co-chair of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) abortion taskforce, said he was aware of up to 30 “deeply traumatic” cases where women had been investigated by the police, with some suffering “life-changing harm”.

He said: “We’ve had patients lose everything – lose their home, lose their children, lose their relationship with their partner – purely as a consequence of the investigation.”

This happens to all sorts of people accused of murder.

His warning comes after the RCOG issued new guidance on Monday saying doctors and other healthcare staff should not report suspected illegal abortions to the police as prosecutions were never in the public interest.

Gosh, that’s fun. So the abortionists are now determining the public interest are they? Isn;t that a bit of aggrandisement?

Now, it is possible to have different views on abortion, obviously. But the way the law works having an abortion outside the current law is an unlawful killing. Like that recent incident where the bird took the pills at what was it, 32 weeks? Which, you know, most of us would consider infanticide, not abortion.

But the folks who plug in the vacuum pumps for a living decide it’s not in the public interest to investigate?

Oh, right.

Umm, no, not really

Do doctors have an obligation under federal law to keep their patients alive, even if their patients happen to be pregnant women? Do doctors have an obligation to prevent maiming – or irreversible organ damage, or other kinds of serious bodily harm – and if so, does that obligation extend even to women? Do women have a right to access medically necessary care even if they are pregnant? No, according to the US fifth circuit court.

That’s the conclusion reached by a three-judge panel recently in Texas v Becerra, a case in which Texas sued the Biden administration over guidance that directed all hospitals receiving federal funds to perform “necessary stabilizing treatment” on patients – including abortions on pregnant patients undergoing medical emergencies.

The case was about whether Federal rule making outweighs State law. As medical care – let alone abortion – is not one of the enumerated powers then no.


Now, whether it’s right or wrong is another matter

Texas can ban emergency abortions despite federal guidance, court rules
The ruling by a unanimous panel of fifth US circuit court of appeals comes amid a wave of lawsuits focusing on abortion exceptions

The entire point of Dobbs was that abortion is not a Federal matter.

The Constitution says that some things are a Federal matter. International trade, say. It also says that those things which are not listed as being Federal belong to the States or the people. Roe said that abortion came under privacy, a Federal right. Dobbs said it didn’t. Therefore the States – and the voters – can do pretty much what they want about abortion because it’s simply not a Federal matter.

This is absolutely nothing about what hte restrictions should or should not be on abortion. It’s about whether the Feds have any rights here – No.

This is just what happens

The Supreme Court of Texas has overturned a ruling that would have allowed a woman to terminate her pregnancy under the medical exception to the state’s near-total abortion ban.

The unanimous ruling came hours after lawyers for Kate Cox, who was 20 weeks pregnant, revealed that she had left the state to obtain an abortion.

Ms Cox, 31, turned to the legal system after being told if she continued with her current pregnancy, her baby would likely be stillborn as it has a condition called Trisomy 18 and has no chance of survival.

No, not forced birth, rather this:

Nine Republican lawmakers ruled on Monday that a “good faith belief” by Damla Karsan, a doctor who sought to perform the abortion on the grounds it was medically necessary, was not enough to qualify for the state’s exception.

Instead, the court said, Dr Karsan would need to determine in her “reasonable medical judgment” that Ms Cox had a “life-threatening condition” and that an abortion was necessary to prevent her death or impairment of a major bodily function.

“A woman who meets the medical-necessity exception need not seek a court order to obtain an abortion,” the court wrote.

“The law leaves to physicians – not judges – both the discretion and the responsibility to exercise their reasonable medical judgment, given the unique facts and circumstances of each patient.’’

They’ve changed the law. As ususal, the law is slightly vague. Therefore greater clrification of what the law actually says is necessary – it being the US, through the court system.

Think it’s a bit odd to call the Supreme Court of TX 9 lawmakers but still. Such running of the first few cases up and down the legal system is normal when the law is changed. Any law in any direction. Just the way the system works.

Missing the point

Mothers, of course, have abortions. And it’s time to accept they are the experts in their own lives
Gina Rushton

If we trust people with the decision to have children, we can trust them with the decision not to

We’re all fine with the decision not to have children. It’s the getting rid of one that exists which is the concern.

Sure, OK, so the argument that the embyo is not a child – but the initial insistence is entirely ignoring even the concern that many to most actually have. And I do mean many to most too – because near all will in fact say that you can’t kill a child just because you don’t want it. Thus even proabortionists are making exactly that distinction, between what is a child which may not be killed and what is not which may.

This bird is just charging through as if the vital question, the releveant distinction, simply doesn’t exist.


Jessica Valenti
As we close in on a year since was Roe was overturned, please remember: Every abortion denied is a tragedy.

Yes, yes, I know, I’m an extremist. I can’t even get behind the idea that an abortion is a necessary tragedy when it happens. But the idea that one that doesn’t happen is a tragedy? Every one denied is a tragedy?

Tough crowd…..

Bugger that

Scrap this unjust verdict, scrap this law: no woman should go to prison for having an abortion
Stella Creasy

Time and crime, Love, time and crime.

The average punishment for a violent crime is about 18 months in prison. Yesterday, a 44-year-old woman was sentenced, under a law dating back to 1861, to 28 months for procuring an abortion beyond 24 weeks.

Violence includes ABH and GBH. The average sentence for murder, upon conviction, is life in prison.

Abortion is a healthcare matter.

Jesus she’s a vile cow, isn’t she? She really is arguing for abortion up until term.


A mother jailed for procuring her own miscarriage. Is that what we want in 21st-century Britain?
Gaby Hinsliff

At 32 weeks?

Hell yes.

This is why we have this democracy thing, see? The peeps get to vote for the people who make the laws, those laws reflecting what the peeps want.

Given that I am feeling particularly evil this morning a siggestion – we send that woman a birthday card on the date that would have been for the next 70 years.