The following is an extract from an article on The Daily Kos:

We thought we had finally gotten the contraception thing down when I awoke one morning in 1971 knowing I was pregnant again. I knew , too, that I could not go through that again.

Abortion was illegal. Roe vs. Wade wasn’t even on the horizon. We’d both been raised in very strictly religious families. It didn’t even occur to me to go see Dr. H. I couldn’t tell anyone, not even my husband. I knew I had to take care of this immediately on my own.

I’d seen the device Dr. H. had used for a dilation and curettage known as a D&C, the procedure doctors use to remove uterine contents. And I’d heard of hangers being used for abortions. I thought a hanger would make a useful D&C.

I didn’t feel any pain, but I knew I’d punctured the uterine wall when I felt sort of a pop. I was wrong about the hanger, but I still expected everything to be okay.

Read the full piece here.


===============================================


Minor spoiler: everything wasn't okay.

I've heard references to wire hangers and abortion since I was a teen, I suspect.  Never once had I ever actually heard a first-person story about an actual incident where someone used a wire hanger to that purpose.  The woman writing this article, however, comes across as nothing other than genuine, and based on her testimony, she wasn't the only one she knew of.

And now 40+ years after Roe v Wade, there is active talk about rescinding that decision.  With that would return the age of the back alley abortion and wire hangers.  It would also reinstitute the practice of those with means going to either Canada or Mexico to get their procedures done.  Worse, there are noises being made about birth control being abortifacients and that they need to be sanctioned as well.

I'm a man who will never get pregnant ... and this pisses me off after a fashion you don't want to guess at.  It is past time that religious influence on women's rights plainly and simply ENDED ... FULL STOP.

Views: 360

Replies to This Discussion

Postscript from comments on the article:

Milt Priggee, where are you when we need you!?

I Googled Milt and discovered that he's a political cartoonist, apparently with a pretty sharp wit.  Fair chance he'd have something to say about this issue, if he hasn't already.

I wrote an op-ed piece, "Rosa's Story," for the Spokesman-Review in response to their political cartoonist, Milt Priggee's cartoon on Aug 3, 1987. He gave me a copy of the picture. I have it framed and on my wall in my room. I would copy and send a photo to you, but I will consult Milt if it is OK. He is so bright, both mentally and as a cartoonist. The newspaper had a big lay-off and Milt left. Sadly. 

And now 40+ years after Roe v Wade, there is active talk about rescinding that decision.  With that would return the age of the back alley abortion and wire hangers.

And some Republican presidential candidates are specifically suggesting that we should go back to the days of coat hangers, using exactly that term.  I can't remember for sure if it was Trump or Cruz who referred to coat hangers, but they both said insane things about abortion this past week.  I think Trump was the coat hanger guy; I know he was the one who suggested prosecuting women who had an abortion, for murder.

Joseph, it is hard to fathom how they can even consider such a thing.  The only answer I can come up with is that the concept of using a wire hanger to terminate a pregnancy is not a real concept to them, but more hearsay, as it was for me up until I read that article.

Once again, it seems like we have to rub Republican noses in reality for them to get the smell of it.  Genuinely makes me sad.

Uhhhh, you have been listening to the words that come out of Trump's Pi-hole, right?  Really, this sort of thing scores maybe a 4 out of 10, by his standards.

I'm surprised that Cruz got out the comment about patrolling Muslim neighborhoods before Trump could come up with it.  Trump must be slipping.  He should have been talking about banning all birth control by now.

I'm almost looking forward to the debates, if Trump takes the nomination.  It'll be interesting to see how any of the Republican candidates do in a debate with a moderator who isn't a Republican crony, who will press him on the issues ... any issue.

I've been following some of the Republican debates, since I'm an emotional masochist, and I can't recall a single issue that they've actually addressed.  Almost the entirety of every debate has played like a mindless attack ad.

Isn't Cruz the one who wants no exceptions for rape or incest or the health of the mother?  Pregnancy uber alles?  Seems to me he said something about "who asked the baby" as regards a woman's right to choose.  A shame he clearly knows nothing about pregnancy statistics and just how many fertilized eggs actually MAKE the 40-week journey to birth.

Then again, this is what you get when people are selectively stupid.

I'm not sure about that.  He's against exceptions for rape and incest, certainly.  I don't think he's so far gone that he dismisses life-of-the-mother exceptions.

There was another candidate, though ... let me try a few Google searches ...

Hmm, americanrtl.com has one of the crazy, psycho stances opposing abortion even to save the life of the mother.  You can read it at http://americanrtl.org/life-of-the-mother-exception, if you have a strong stomach.

Rep. Joe Walsh is probably the one I was thinking of: http://www.livescience.com/24127-fact-check-walsh-pregnancy-can-kil... ...

... although Scott Walker said something of the sort, too:  http://liveactionnews.org/scott-walker-informs-megyn-kelly-abortion...

I've seen speculation that their real target is Griswold v Connecticut, not Roe.

Not so much the real target as the eventual target.  If they could get Roe v. Wade overturned, they would then push from there to banning hormonal birth control as an abortifacient.  We've heard that particular line of bullshit for something like the past decade, now.  If they got enough shitheads like Scalia on the court, they could get such a ruling that completely opposes scientific findings.  Scalia was anti-scientific, to a disgusting degree:

From http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2015/06/sca...:

The following is an excerpt of the dissent in Edwards vs. Aguillard written by Scalia:

The body of scientific evidence supporting creation science is as strong as that supporting evolution. In fact, it may be stronger…. The evidence for evolution is far less compelling than we have been led to believe. Evolution is not a scientific “fact,” since it cannot actually be observed in a laboratory. Rather, evolution is merely a scientific theory or “guess.”… It is a very bad guess at that. The scientific problems with evolution are so serious that it could accurately be termed a “myth.”…

Creation science is educationally valuable…

He was such an asshole that he didn't even bother using the obfuscatory term, ID.  He was a flat-out opponent of the first amendment.

Jesus. Fucking. Christ. You're making me puke here, Joseph, although I'm not surprised.

RSS

About

line

Update Your Membership :

Membership

line

line

Nexus on Social Media:

line

© 2018   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service