The National  Memo Logo

Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.

Monday, December 09, 2019 {{ new Date().getDay() }}

Reprinted with permission from Shareblue.


Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) is the first senator to give birth while in office. She recently showed up to a rally of women protesting Trump’s family separations with her infant daughter strapped to her chest.

And on her last day of maternity leave, she went on national TV to tell her colleagues in the Senate that if they vote to confirm a Supreme Court justice who would overturn Roe v. Wade, they will be voting to keep women like her from becoming mothers through fertility treatments like in vitro fertilization (IVF).

On CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday, host Jake Tapper asked Duckworth about her push to change the Senate rules so that she could be allowed to bring her baby onto the floor.

“How are your male colleagues adapting to this new rule?” Tapper asked.

After acknowledging they had been “great” and “very, very bipartisan” about it, Duckworth pivoted to a much less bipartisan issue — the crucial fight over who gets to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy.

“I hope that they will keep that in mind when we start looking at the Supreme Court nominee,” Duckworth said, making a personal appeal to her colleagues to remember her baby when considering their vote.

“You know, Roe v. Wade is important to me,” Duckworth continued. “I would not be able to have both of my beautiful children and my newborn daughter without IVF, and the abolishment of Roe v. Wade could actually deny those of us who use IVF the ability to seek fertility treatments.”

Duckworth is absolutely right. While abolishing Roe v. Wade wouldn’t automatically outlaw IVF nationwide, it would allow states to pass bans on abortion that are so extreme, they would also ban IVF and many forms of contraception.

That would shut the door on women with disabilities like Duckworth who can’t conceive without IVF, and it would cruelly deny a well-established treatment to couples with fertility issues.

This shocking scenario isn’t just a theoretical possibility.

Anti-choice activists in 13 states have tried to put laws on the ballot that would legally define a fertilized embryo as a person, and give that embryo the same rights as a fully developed, live-born infant.

While voters have overwhelmingly rejected these “personhood” bills so far, there’s no guarantee that their state lawmakers wouldn’t pass one.

In 2017, personhood measures that would ban IVF and many forms of birth control were introduced in 17 states.

And two states, Kansas and Missouri, already have “personhood” language on their books. Neither law is currently in effect, because both clarify that the laws are subject to the U.S. Constitution and the decisions of the Supreme Court.

But if the Supreme Court decided to overturn Roe v. Wade, those laws could go into effect — and women in Kansas and Missouri would be denied fertility treatments, forbidden from accessing hormonal birth control, and placed at risk of being arrested for having a miscarriage.

Tammy Duckworth’s Republican colleagues in the Senate need to listen to her. If they confirm a Supreme Court appointee from Trump’s right-wing listRoe v. Wade could be history, and women will suffer — both women who don’t want to be mothers, and those who very much do.

Published with permission of The American Independent. 


Start your day with National Memo Newsletter

Know first.

The opinions that matter. Delivered to your inbox every morning


YouTube Screenshot

In the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v Wade, ending the constitutional right to an abortion after almost 50 years, some conservatives and mainstream media outlets have suggested that anti-abortionists may be willing to support more generous family welfare programs to offset the financial burden of forced birth. These suggestions, whether made in bad faith or ignorance, completely misunderstand the social function of prohibiting abortion, which is to exert control over women and all people who can get pregnant.

In adopting or replicating the right’s framing of anti-abortionists as “pro-life,” these outlets mystify the conservative movement’s history and current goals. Conservatives have sought to dismantle the United State’s limited safety net since the passage of the New Deal. Expecting the movement to reverse course now is absurd, and suggesting so serves primarily to obfuscate the economic hardship the end of Roe will inflict on people forced to carry a pregnancy to term.

Keep reading... Show less

Arizona Republican Senate candidate Blake Masters

YouTube Screenshot

Donald Trump's hand-picked candidate Blake Masters is the latest to endorse the unpopular idea.

The front-runner in the GOP primary to run for Senate in Arizona in November against Democratic incumbent Sen. Mark Kelly suggested on June 23 that Social Security should be privatized, an approach to the popular government program that experts say could jeopardize a vital financial lifeline for retired Americans.

Keep reading... Show less
{{ }}