Abortion Access Is Vital for People with Disabilities | Time

But people with disabilities are often left out of the fight for reproductive rights


“People with disabilities also have sex. They want to start families, they want to date,” Moonan says. But “people don’t see people with disabilities that way.”

This is so true and in many ways people don’t see people with disabilities at all.

Joy Moonan and others are ‘Experts by Experience’ and they all so need to be listened for the politicians and not experts in any field. It is just they have been voted into positions which gives them great power, but they use it so unwisely.

A blanket ban on abortions and some other medical interventions are so wrong as all cases should be viewed on their merits. Especially where lives are in question and with abortions in many other instances such as rape, incest, etc.

To not take into account the lives of women is justifying ‘Institutional Murder’, but, certainly in America and maybe in some other countries, politics has been allowed to run uncontrollably, as severe right or even left views need to be contained.

People should be the important factor and not just the views of the powerful or assumed powerful, for that is power by dictatorship, which can be readily seen in some, supposed democratically ruled countries, especially in some parts of America.

The abortion bans are an abuse of power, not respecting hard fought for Womens Human Rights, so disrespectful of women.

Source: Abortion Access Is Vital for People with Disabilities | Time

Abortion rights: history offers a blueprint for how pro-choice campaigners might usefully respond | The BMJ

In October 1971, the New York Times reported a decline in maternal death rate.1 Just 15 months earlier, the state had liberalised its abortion law. David Harris, New York’s deputy commissioner of health, speaking to the annual meeting of the American Public Health Association, attributed the decline—by more than half—to the replacement of criminal abortions with safe, legal ones. Previously, abortion had been the single leading cause of maternity related deaths, accounting for around a third. A doctor in the audience who said he was from a state “where the abortion law is still archaic,” thanked New York for its “remarkable job” and expressed his gratitude that there was a place he could send his patients and know they would receive “safe, excellent care.” Harris urged other states to follow the example set by New York and liberalise their abortion laws.

Just two years later, in 1973, the US Supreme Court intervened. In the landmark decision, Roe v. Wade, the Court …


Abortion, an emotive subject whether you agree with abortion or not.

I honestly feel, that if it was males who gave birth, rather than women, then all these anti-abortion actions would be greatly reduced. Males don’t understand or don’t wish to understand the feelings of women and only look at everything from a male perspective. For far too long women have been and in some cultures still are controlled by males, when, really males and females should be equal. While in ma and in many instances this should be so, but as history shows many areas where women have gained more independence and control of their lives. However, hard fought for rights are always there to be taken away, as is seen in America by the overflow of Roe v Wade.

The American Constitution is held in high esteem in America and so it should, but it was written in 1787 and in force by 1789, but that is many years ago and time has moved on and in some ways so as The Constitution, but not as much as the Bill of Rights 1689, which is a somewhat equivalent in England and was in some way an extension of Magna Carta.

But these were written very many years ago and mainly by middle aged white men, based on hard Christian principles of that time. But, as we know time has moved on and so has the cultures both in racial, disability, gender and many others, including religion.

Women, these days have a much greater degree of input into all areas and rightly so, but in America, women, in some respects are still disregarded and certainly are some persons whose ethnicity is non-white. Unlike in 1789 we are now all equal and the Constitutional Rights should encompass that.

Overthrowing Roe v Wade is a retrograde step and the rights of women have been seriously undermined and not only that, as in the States that have now banned abortions, this is effecting the poor rather than the not so poor. As some of the not so poor could travel to other states who still allow abortions, but the poor can’t afford to do so. But banning abortions will not stop then, but it may reduce then, as the poor will more than likely still wish to have an abortion and will therefore find a ‘back street’ abortion, which is more than likely to mean the women and her to be born baby will be at more serious harm. Yes, the baby will still die, but in circumstances which are far from good and there is a very strong likelihood that the women could receive great serious harm and in some instances death.

The anti-abortionist are now elated that they have gotten their way, but at great cost to women and in doing so have returned women’s rights to medieval times, instead of the 21st century.

In reversing Roe v Wade it is not a great achievement, but forcing all to live their lives by strict, outdated Christian principles, which even in the 1600s were viewed to be extreme, hence the Pilgrim Fathers left England to the Netherlands before embarking on their voyage to the New America. In doing so they also seriously infringed the rights and lives of the Native Americans, who they treated abominably, pushing them off their own lands and killing them when they resisted, is that any different to Russia in Ukraine.

If the Pilgrim Father were doing this today, it could be viewed as a form of terrorism.



Source: Abortion rights: history offers a blueprint for how pro-choice campaigners might usefully respond | The BMJ

What the Bible actually says about abortion may surprise you

Faith can inform opinions about abortion on both sides of the political debate, but the Bible itself says nothing directly about the topic, a biblical scholar explains.


To use the Bible to prove anything is greatly debatable for it is a  book of thoughts and beliefs of some of the people of that time. However,, the bible was not written at that time, as it was written many years later and there have been many translations.

So, it could be said that what is in the Bible is the thoughts, opinions, beliefs and interpretations of persons after that time quoting and stating how they believed the original persons beliefs, who the texts are deemed to be from, were.

Many alterations and interpretations could have taken place and even more following the translations. So, to say the Bible is true, is only as true as their own beliefs now and is and very often open to many more interpretations.

Beliefs are what they are and only to each individual and beliefs should never be forced upon others, as we are all entitled to our own beliefs and live our lives as we individually wish to.

Religious fanatics always hold extreme beliefs and unfortunately religious fanatism and its political interpretations is what is currently being used to determine the Law and Justice of America, when justice should be for all the people and religion and politics should have no power on justice.

So, abortion should be an individual decision and religion and political beliefs should never overpower an individuals decision.

This is also for same sex marriage and other similar issues.

It amazes me, that many of these religious fanatics are also showing racial discrimination, when to follow their Christian beliefs they should be viewing all people as being equal and not some being more equal than others, just because they are not in their own image.

Also they believe Christ was a blond white man, when this would have been far from the truth, as he would have been some shade of brown/black. However, Christianity was overtook by Western followers who would never contend that Christ was anything but white, as white was seen as purity, which throughout history as been proved, many times, not to be so. For that is a form of abuse and abuse should never be tolerated.

White is purely a colour and should never be used as means of superiority, for to do so, is a mis-reputation of Christianity, for we all are to be equal.

Do not abuse Christianity for your own means.


Source: What the Bible actually says about abortion may surprise you

US abortion restrictions are unlikely to influence international trends, which are largely becoming more liberal

Only 24 countries today totally ban abortion. The Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision in the US is unlikely to lead other countries to join that list.


Hopefully, the US influence on restricting women’s rights is diminishing, as if not it will be a great disservice to women after campaigning for so many years to gain long sought after rights.

Even with Roe v Wade the rights to free access were not as great as they should have been, for even though Roe v Wade did liberalise abortion, it did not restrict the rights of anti-abortionists to challenge women on their trying to enter abortion clinics as the had to counter an excessive wall of abuse to do so, thus creating a great more stress for women at an extremely stressful time. What should have been the case was for a free zone around the clinics so women attending for abortions did not have to contend with abuse virtually at the clinic doors.

Unfortunately, in America, the rights of religious zealots are looked at more favourably than the rights of women. The World at large is showing much more liberalisation than has ever been afforded in America. This is, supposedly the ‘Land of the Free’, what a joke, for it is only free if you agree with the principles of extreme religion, with America being in respects of, supposed extreme Christianity, while the likes of Iran, Iraq, Syria, etc being extreme Muslim. The 2 vast extremes of religion, but with freedoms so restrictive.

So, lets do hope that the liberalisation of women’s rights is here to stay and be further extended in the majority of other countries.


Source: US abortion restrictions are unlikely to influence international trends, which are largely becoming more liberal

Roe v Wade: the religious right has long influenced law in the US – here’s how abortion rights could be challenged elsewhere

Reproductive rights are threatened around the world.


So the right to have an abortion within the US has been withdrawn and in some respects reference is made to the US Constitution and Christianity, as the Constitution was constructed in 1789 by persons who invaded America in 1620 and were known as ‘The Pilgrim Fathers’ a religious sect based on strict religious principles.

In some respects The Fathers based some of The Constitution on Christian principles with the 10  Commandments having some basis.

However, abortion is not mentioned specifically in either The Constitution or the 10 Commandments, and neither is same sex marriage, LGBT or contraception, so it is down to interpretations.

Murder is mentioned in the 10 Commandments, but, abortion is not within that context as abortion is the ‘termination of a pregnancy by removal or expulsion of an embryo or fetus and murder is the unlawful killing of another human without justification or valid excuse’ by another human being and a fetus is not classed as a human being.

But, it appears that some forms of murder are authorised in The Constitution otherwise why have the 2nd Amendment, which authorises the right to bear arms ‘supporting the natural rights of self-defense and resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state’. However, in reality it is being used by many to justify individual use, but not in self-defence but the murder of other human beings who are causing no harm to anyone. It was also at a time when there wasn’t a reliable State force, which now there is. So, it appears Americans use what they wish to favour themselves and not America as a whole. That is the basis of anarchy.

So, abortion is not being withdrawn using The Constitution or Christian principles, so it could be down to political fervour which should not have any basis in legal standing. Judges should be impartial in legal situations, but this does not appear to be so in America. Unfortunately, Politics and religion have much to be wary of and to withdraw rights to abortion on these bases is completely wrong and shows no respect for the rights of women.


Source: Roe v Wade: the religious right has long influenced law in the US – here’s how abortion rights could be challenged elsewhere

Abortion: The story of suffering and death behind Ireland’s ban and subsequent legalization

In 1983, a constitutional referendum outlawed abortion in Ireland. In 2018, another referendum repealed the ban and legalized abortion during the first trimester of pregnancy. What happened?


Pro-life and religion is not always totally maintaining life, as by banning abortions, this, in some, instances be the cause of the loss of life of the mother to be, so in all cases, it should be viewed on an individual basis and not a blanket judgement. As a blanket judgement to maintain the life of an unborn child, can be the cause of the death of the intended mother, as was the case in the death of Savita Halappanavar.

It is also, always the case of insisting on the rights of one will impinge on the rights of another and could also cause health issues, many, which could be long standing.

I am not advocating abortion on demand, as the to be mother and, if , necessary, the to be father, should be made aware of all the relevant facts about having an abortion or not on the question of the health of both the intending baby and the to be mother. Pro-life and religion should not be factors as that should be down to the personal discretion of the intended mother and father, and should not be the business of other parties.

Where abortions are to be done, there should also be full rights of access for the ladies who are considering abortion, so objectors to abortions not connected to the ladies should not be allowed anywhere near the clinics concerned as approaching a clinic is stressful enough without any interference from anti-abortionists adding to the stress.

Human rights should be respected and this includes the ladies considering abortions for it is after all their bodies which are in the process.

Many argue that if you don’t wish to give birth then don’t involve in the acts of conception, but some may not have been given a choice, especially with rape, trafficking and grooming.

The human rights of women need to be given great consideration and not ignored, as to not to do so is giving access to abuse.

Source: Abortion: The story of suffering and death behind Ireland’s ban and subsequent legalization

Thousands of protesters hit streets across the US and begin to mass outside Clarence Thomas’ home | Daily Mail Online

The prospective law changes, released in a concurring opinion Friday’s decision by the justice, would see limits put on gay marriage, same-sex activity, and citizens’ access to birth control.



With the overthrow of Roe v Wade the Supreme Court have made America no longer the ‘Land of the Free’, if it ever was.

You may argue that if women don’t wish to have babies, then they should not undertake actions in which they could become pregnant, but do they really have that choice in respect of RAPE and maybe incest. If men could be able to carry an unborn baby and then give birth, then maybe abortions may not be necessary, but in those instances a rapist would need to be caught in time.

As now women are not free to live their lives as they wish to and while the abolition of abortion rights is bad enough that may not be the last actions against freedoms from this Supreme Court. For now they could move onto birth control, same sex marriage, LGBTQ rights and many more, for religion and politics have no place in dealing with legalities, but Human Rights have.

Not only is it withdrawing human rights, but are, in effect, creating situations where the health of women will be of grave risk and could be a cause of their deaths.

To do so the Supreme Court will, in many respects, be equal to the Taliban and other Islamic zealots, for Christian zealots are just as bad as Islamic zealots, if not more so.

The Supreme Court are, in effect, abusing women by withdrawing their rights, for now there is no equality in America.


Source: Thousands of protesters hit streets across the US and begin to mass outside Clarence Thomas’ home | Daily Mail Online

Look at 3 enduring stories Americans tell about guns to understand the debate over them

The ways Americans talk about firearms is full of contradictions, two communication scholars explain – and that powerfully shapes the country’s approach to gun policy.


Guns in America is a contentious agreement and yes, America does have a right to live how they wish, but that is also said that each American has a right to live their own lives and be conscientious that by doing so do others around them.

True that American history did to a large extent resolve around violence of which the use of guns was a major part. But, in effect the ‘Pilgrim Fathers’ were invaders, in 1620, into a country which was already populated, but being a large country there were many parts which were no way overpopulated and so with much negotiation, maybe, all could have lived peacefully together. But Europeans in that day and maybe currently and not only Europeans, had a desire to explore and, in many instances, did not accept the right of the Native American population to live their lives as they had done for many 100s or even 1000s of years. After all the Native Americans there were only protecting property which they viewed to be theirs, just as we all wish to do currently.

But in many instances the invaders believed they had rights over and above the natives who were already there. In some parts of the world considerations to natives was given and some trust was built, but it is easy to break or lose trust and also then not easy to regain and if done keep. As one action, which may not be viewed well, will invariably lead to a trust breakdown, thus resulting in maybe violent actions by one party or more.

Eventually, the Pilgrim Fathers (settlers) and others who came from Europe wished to move further inland and found the vast areas of land, which appeared to be unoccupied, but the Native Americans were there first, and many did not just reside in one place but moved  However they wished to. So many incidents of meeting each other occurred which resulted in many instances pf persons being injured and killed. The Native Americans (natives)generally were only armed with bows and arrows and tomahawks and knives, whereas the settlers were more likely armed with the guns of the day, even though, initially they may have been only single shot rifles or muskets. But the natives were generally experienced fighter and very skilled with the weapons they used, while the settlers may not have been with their weapons. Also usually the natives were in groups where everyone was armed, while the settlers, maybe, at least, initially were not in large numbers and were family units so only a few were armed.

Many massacres occurred on both sides and for the settlers, militaries were formed in 1861 with legislation from the newly formed American Government of 1776. However, the natives were not generally consulted about this process and were forced to move onto them. A substantive few, possibly of the young adults were not content with this and came off them and were then rounded up eventually and returned. But some settlers also didn’t respect the reservations, which they were not legally allowed to enter and certainly not settle in, but many did, showing to the natives, that, again, they were not being respected. So many disputes occurred over many years and the natives were, generally the one to suffer most.

All this is occurring in a country invaded by, initially the Pilgrim Fathers, who were puritanical Christians, but in many instances Christian principles were not extending in contacting with the natives.

The main governing document of America is the American Constitution created by the Founding Fathers written in 1787, ratified in 1788, and in operation since 1789 and in the main this is still substantially followed to this day.

But times have moved on, but in some respects not the Constitution as this is religiously defended by many in America. It was, however, written by middle aged to older white men of the puritan Christian view of that time. However, America, now is a varied mixture of cultures and religions, which this Constitution may well not take into account. Also, now politics play a hand in many areas of America and while, currently The President Joe Biden is a democrat and Congress and the Senate both have a democrat majority, albeit very small.

But the main legal body the Supreme Court as nine justices of which 5 are deemed to be Republicans with the other 4 being Democrats, so could it be said that this court has political leanings to republican views, in their interpretations of the Constitution, and not the views of human Rights as defined today

This could be said of the recent decision of the Court to abolish Roe v Wade re Human Rights of women regarding abortions and maybe Gun rights although a recent amendment to Gun rights has been passed by The Senate

So we have Human Rights v The Constitution, especially for women,  non-white ethnicities and areas of sexuality, very worrying times for many in America.


Source: Look at 3 enduring stories Americans tell about guns to understand the debate over them

US supreme court poised to overturn abortion law: what the leaked opinion says and what happens next

What is the draft opinion about the landmark US abortion decision Roe v. Wade and how did we find out about it?


So this draft judgement is how the Supreme Court views the American Constitution in that they say ‘legal approach which holds that laws, including the constitution, should be applied as they were understood when first passed. Alito argues over several pages that abortion was not a right accepted or protected in the US for much of the nation’s history before 1973.’

However, this Constitution was implemented in the late 1700s and most of the World has progressed much since then, with a few exceptions, Afghanistan for one and it appears the US for another.

Medical processes since then are no way what they were in the late 1700s, but in general no one is wishing to proceed as they were in the late 1700s. So some, especially those with Republican views are picking and choosing which they still wish to abide by and those they don’t and other, which they tend to mistranslate.

Human Rights have progressed so, much in many countries, while in some have regressed, Afghanistan being a prime example, especially with regards to women. So, in effect, if Roe v Wade is overturned so some women’s rights will be as they were in the late 1700s rather than the 21st century, the US will, in some respects be similar to Afghanistan. Thereby, Republican law having some similar aspects to Taliban law, this really what Republicans wish for.

Abortion is not the only contentious issue for there is also the US Gun Laws. If we abide as in the possible overthrow of Roe v Wade that the ruling should follow the Constitution as it was in the late 1700s. It would mean the armaments should be similar to those of the late 1700s and not the supreme weapons of the 21st century, such as AK-47s.

In the late 1700s civilian militias were formed as it was not sure if the national forces could be trusted, especially in some areas of the US,  but, in reality can that be said today.

It would appear now that many have ‘arms’ without any involvement in any militias, surely that is against the Constitution, unless it is for hunting and home defense, but not while within any outside communities as surely that is why there are Police forces, which in many instances there were not in the late 1700s, except for perhaps an untrained Sheriff and some deputies.

Americans appear to pick and choose what they live by and in many instances infringe on many Human Rights of others.




Source: US supreme court poised to overturn abortion law: what the leaked opinion says and what happens next

As the US supreme court moves to end abortion, is America still a free country? | Moira Donegan | The Guardian

There is no condition more essential to democratic citizenship than a person’s control over her own body. We can’t call ourselves a free country without it


The supposed ‘land of the free,’ but if Roe v Wade is abolished it will be a mockery of being free, for free it will not be, that is, unless you abide with all the religious fanatics, many of whom go under the banner of being ‘Republicans’.
It is wrong that the US justice system is so geared around religion than the rights of people to live their own lives.
America is so not free and those saying it is are just fooling themselves.
Those who wish to abolish abortion have no regards for those who wish to have an abortion.
Why anyone wants to live in America is a mystery as the whole environment appears to revolve around death.
The gun laws, the police, the courts, the health system, there is no free in America.

Source: As the US supreme court moves to end abortion, is America still a free country? | Moira Donegan | The Guardian