Daily Kos

Maybe Gabriela Flores can boycott Target when she's out of jail

Tue Nov 15, 2005 at 08:12:55 PM PDT

We like to tell ourselves that, as long as Roe stands, abortion is legal. We like to think that "reasonable" restrictions on abortion are ... reasonable. We like to think that this is an issue best left ignored, shoved aside, open to compromise.

I beg to differ. Two days after the GAO exposed underhanded political stonewalling on Plan B, I take the occasion to offer a different tale of what's currently legal in the United States....

Five months ago, this post appeared relating one woman's ordeal of find herself pregnant in this world where abortion is supposedly a Constitutionally-protected right:

Last October, Gabriela Flores ended her 16-week pregnancy by taking misoprostol pills sent by her sister from Mexico. She had no choice but to risk her life by taking illegally imported drugs, without any doctor's supervision, because although abortion is technically legal in South Carolina, in Gabriela's situation it may as well have been illegal.

South Carolina laws force women to get permission from their husbands, listen to biased anti-abortion "counseling" riddled with misinformation, and to undergo a mandatory waiting period. And abortions after 13 weeks are so restricted that no provider in the state will offer them.

Gabriela would have had to travel to another state, two and-a-half hours away, and since such a procedure is done over two days, she most likely would have lost her job. Gabriela was working in the fields supporting three children and herself on $150 per week. There is no way she could have afforded the $700 procedure.

The pills caused her to expel the dead fetus, which she buried in her back yard. One can only imagine the stress and pain of her whole situation. But her suffering was far from over.

She was reported to the police, who were told that the four-month-old fetus was born alive. Rather than showing concern for her health, sheriffs obtained a warrant and dug up the fetus. Prosecutors wanted to charge Gabriela with murder. They would have been legally able to do it if they'd been able to prove that the fetus would have survived on its own. Since there's no way a four-month-old fetus could do this, they couldn't get away with that charge. But had she been further along--say, five or six months pregnant--they probably would have been able to get away with it. Instead, they charged her with performing an abortion on herself--which is illegal under South Carolina law.

Let's face it. Most women are not rich jet-setters going to cotillions and debutante balls and having weekly manicures. Most women cannot afford to not work. Most women are just trying to get by. These are the realities in this world. And these are the realities most women facing unwanted pregnancy have to accommodate.

Gabriela Flores is just one woman who's invisible to the activists who say she, and all women of childbearing years, should be stripped of rights to self-determination and made breeders for the state.

This is happening now. Not next year. This is happening with Roe still recognized as law of the land

And this is happening as Republicans and Democrats turn their backs on reproductive rights to pander to the radical right in their battle for power.

The tragedy of all this is that the stakes aren't measured by political calculus, but by human lives.

Forced to come to this country in order to survive, Gabriela had to leave two of her children behind on the other side of the razor wire and death fields of the border.

She broke her back in the fields for the privilege of trying to feed herself and her family on $150 a week and still have enough to send money to her children back home.

She had to endanger her health and her life to get an abortion. A snitch landed her in jail. The woman that helped her was arrested.

And now, she has been criminalized; she faces two years in prison and will likely face deportation. It's unclear what will happen to the child she has here. Her whole life--never valued anyway--is being destroyed.

That's just one result of the "pro-life" agenda. And it could get much much worse.

When rape victims can't get Plan B prescriptions filled -- even whenPlan B prevents conception and in no way causes abortion (because pregnancy is prevented -- we see how already existing politics are hurting women across the country.

Tell me that Gabriela Flores is not a victim of anti-abortion politics. Tell me that Gabriela Flores has people looking out for her. Tell me that the next Gabriela Flores cannot be your sister or your daughter or your best friend (or you).

And tell me again why a politician's stance on governmental controls on abortion should not be important.

Please.

Tags: abortion, reproductive rights, Plan B, South Carolina, crime, contraception, Gabriela Flores (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 100 comments

      •  And more (4.00 / 21)

        from May of this year "here": The Hand Maid's Tale.

        Gabriela Flores has plenty of company. South Carolina is notorious for jailing women charged with violating laws that ostensibly were passed to protect them.

        Stillborn Justice
        By BOB HERBERT

        Two years ago Regina McKnight of Conway, S.C., was 22 years old, homeless, addicted to cocaine, possibly mentally handicapped, and pregnant. When she gave birth on May 15, 1999, the infant was stillborn.

        Here's how South Carolina, a state with a long history of backwardness, dealt with this tragedy: Regina McKnight was convicted of homicide and sentenced to 12 years in prison. Ms. McKnight smoked crack while she was pregnant, and an autopsy showed evidence of cocaine in the infant's system. The doctor who performed the autopsy believed that the fetus expired a day or two before the delivery, which occurred eight and a half months into the pregnancy.

        Doctors who testified at the trial did not agree on whether Ms. McKnight's addiction was the cause of death. Nevertheless, a jury deliberated only 15 minutes before finding her guilty of homicide by child abuse.

        In South Carolina's system of criminal justice a viable fetus is considered a person. This allows the authorities to wage open warfare on pregnant women who do not behave as the authorities would like. Virtually any behavior that could potentially harm the fetus can be prosecuted as criminal child abuse. A pregnant woman who smokes, drinks, uses legal or illegal drugs or even fails to follow a doctor's orders is at risk of prosecution for child abuse or
        murder.


    •  Not an issue yet... (4.00 / 9)

      As you said in your diary, it will get worse.

      What happens when the pharmacist at Target refuses to give you plan B? Now she knows you're potentially "in the family way" and looking to prevent it.  She can keep tabs on you and snitch on you when you don't end up with a new baby in 10 months.

      Gotta make it somehow on the dreams we still believe. - R. Hunter.

      by mungley on Tue Nov 15, 2005 at 11:18:03 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The natural progression (3.87 / 8)

        would be to put such women in a detention facility where they can be properly monitored until they give birth, be given proper nutrition so they produce a healthy baby that can be immediately taken from her and given to an infertile couple that has made adequate donations to the ruling party.  Then the women could be returned to the destitute circumstances from which they came.  Just think, it could spur a whole economic boom from the construction of "maternal facilitation centers" across the country!  
        •  Yeah, but what about the baby boom? (4.00 / 2)

          Have you read the Kurt Vonnegut story "Tomorrow and Tomorrow and Tomorrow"?
          Families are forced to live in the same home for generations due to over population.  There's a grandfather who keeps promising to die and make a little room for his family.  I forget the plot details but he ends up having them all arrested.  It turns out that there's still the concept of one man to one bed in jail, so, as Barbara Bush would say, "It works out pretty well for them."

          This was back when prison was a government run thing (not privatized) and we had the concept of human rights in this country, but you get the idea...

          Anyway, won't women Choose to become pregnant so that they can live like humans for a few months rather than live in the squalor to which we are all destined.

          Gotta make it somehow on the dreams we still believe. - R. Hunter.

          by mungley on Tue Nov 15, 2005 at 11:59:20 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  This is why (3.66 / 3)

      appealing to the "good" conservatives, you know, the libertarians and such, may not work out so well.  If you only care about people in the top 10% of income and wealth abortion will seem perfectly accessable long after it has become unavailable for the majority.  And most of the money people think that's just swell for the same reason they don't really give a shit about your aunt who dies of cancer because she doesn't have health insurance.  She just wasn't "working hard enough", hadn't "earned it" and all that bullshit.

      Then did he raise on high the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch, saying, "Bless this, O Lord, that with it thou mayst blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy."

      by Event Horizon on Wed Nov 16, 2005 at 05:23:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I don't suppose...... (4.00 / 10)

    ...you'd want to come to MLW and post this?  This is fucking brilliant.  

    "Raybin is not a lying maniac. I've found this person to be an extremely clever and devious lying conartist, but never a maniac."--RElland on Daily Kos

    by Raybin on Tue Nov 15, 2005 at 08:23:39 PM PDT

  •  In this new age of McCarthyism (4.00 / 8)

    the only advice I can offer is to dig a deeper hole.
  •  Speechless.... (4.00 / 11)

    I already know how dangerous it is to be blase about my reproductive rights, but I had no idea that they were actually already prosecuting people.  I can't even imagine how horrible it would be to be in a situation like that.

    And they say women aren't strong....

    "You can't expect people to have the virtue of purity when they are poor." -Bob Dylan

    by tryptamine on Tue Nov 15, 2005 at 08:27:04 PM PDT

    •  They keep saying that they won't... (none / 0)

      prosecute the women who get abortions, only the doctors that perform them.  The women are only poor victims, according to these people. Yeah, right. I remember when seat belt laws were first passed in California. People didn't like the idea that police would be able to pull them over even if they weren't breaking any traffic laws, so they specifically wrote the law so that you could only get a ticket for not wearing a seat belt if you were pulled over for another violation first.  A couple of years later, after people had gotten used to the new laws, they amended the law so that you can be pulled over for no crime other than not wearing a seat belt.  They only say they won't criminalize the woman's role because people are offended by the idea of women going to jail for having an abortion.  Once the right manages to totally criminalize it, they will change their stand.

      I'm predicting that within 5 years of abortion being criminalized, jails will start filling up with women who aborted themselves.  These people won't stop until abortion is totally impossible whereever they have control.  They've already started, as evidenced by this diary.  How many other horror stories are out there? How many women have been injured by self induced "miscarriages"? How much longer are we going to let ourselves be lulled by the false security provide by Roe V. Wade?

  •  powerful diary (4.00 / 13)

    most excellent, highly recommended. As suggested above, you should crosspost it on My Left Wing.

    One question, and forgive my ignorance of abortion law. The South Carolina abortion restrictions sound oppressive to the point of being constitutionally questionable. Has anyone tried contesting any of these restrictions in court?

    -8.25, -6.26 "I'm not superstitious. But, I AM a little stitious." - Michael Scott

    by snookybeh on Tue Nov 15, 2005 at 08:42:04 PM PDT

    •  Thanks for the second of the suggestion (4.00 / 3)

      I asked because we've been talking a great deal about the Target boycott...but this shows that there's much more important work to do.

      "Raybin is not a lying maniac. I've found this person to be an extremely clever and devious lying conartist, but never a maniac."--RElland on Daily Kos

      by Raybin on Tue Nov 15, 2005 at 08:43:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Certainly (4.00 / 10)

      The key to the rapid spread of TRAP laws and other antiabortion legislation is the federal district court system. When any such law is passed in one state in a given district, it is invariably challenged by the CRR or the ACLU.

      But if that district court upholds it, other states within the same federal district then are free to follow suit, and they generally do, with bills that copy the already court-approved language word for word.

      In order to mount a new challenge, there must be new grounds, and that's hard to do with an identical law -- especially before federal judges who have yet to see a burden they deem to be "undue."

      The reason that our draconian laws in Texas cannot be challenged is that the same restrictions were previously imposed in Mississippi, subsequently challenged, and duly upheld by the 5th District Court of Appeals in New Orleans.

  •  Well written diary. Thanks for bringing this (4.00 / 21)

    to the attention of a wide audience. These stories need to be told NOW so we can prevent Alito from being confirmed...if he were to be confirmed...there would/could be a million Gabriela Flores's per year.
  •  My god... (4.00 / 12)

    ...it's no longer is a "What if...?" situation. It's now.

    *John McCain is aware of the Internet*

    by MichaelPH on Tue Nov 15, 2005 at 09:06:34 PM PDT

  •  I reccommended... (4.00 / 5)

    ...this and threw it in the Open Thread. Hope it helps.

    *John McCain is aware of the Internet*

    by MichaelPH on Tue Nov 15, 2005 at 09:12:09 PM PDT

  •  Well, you know, (4.00 / 19)

    Gabriela's just gonna have to wait, because we have to elect Casey to the Senate, because even though he would support her incarceration and that of anyone else in her position, by gum, he's got a D next to his name and that makes him alright, Gabriela Flores be damned!

    </annoying so-called liberal arguing why a woman's right to choose is irrelevant>

    Great diary, media girl. Another reminder of why we cannot give another inch on the issue of choice, and the work we still have to do to give all women their constitutional right to choose.

    I'm not part of a redneck agenda - Green Day
    Neither is California High Speed Rail

    by eugene on Tue Nov 15, 2005 at 09:39:51 PM PDT

    •  but... He's pro-labor! (4.00 / 2)

      Haven't you heard?  Casey supports working people!  Upper middle class white women like Ms. Flores can't be the sole focus of the Democratic party!

      Ortiz/Ramírez '08

      by theran on Wed Nov 16, 2005 at 04:49:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  ridiculous (4.00 / 2)

        We have an interesting diary here that we should be talking about how to help Ms. Flores our with her legal battle and other women like her, and here you are on a thread disparaging Casey.

        Yeah, dude is pro-labor.  And you hold that against him?  He's not on the side of the choice issue I'd like him on, but neither is Harry Reid.

        We are a big tent party.  And that to me means that candidates not supporting one of our issues but supporting all of our core values is still a candidate I'm willing to support and volunteer.

        The most important word in the language of the working class is `solidarity.'--Harry Bridges, longshore union leader

        by Bendygirl on Wed Nov 16, 2005 at 05:18:45 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The difference between Casey and Reid (4.00 / 5)

          Reid is personally pro-life, but is pro-choice as a matter of public policy. Casey is pro-criminalization, and has stated he will pass legislation banning abortion if Roe is overturned. When you say "big tent," pro-choice already is the big tent. You can have any position you want on abortion and be pro-choice. "Pro-life" on the other hand is not the big tent, for they do not tolerate other views. In fact, they want the government to impose their views on everyone else. That is not big tent. And, to me, having "pro-life" people in the name of the "big tent" is like having KKK members in the name of diversity.
          •  poor analogy (none / 1)

            You don't like Casey.  Fine.  You don't.

            But I do believe in the big tent.  Having differing views is a piece of that tent even when you don't agree.  

            In the end, the policies of a Dem who is "pro-life" and a Republican who is Pro-choice is that the Republican still doesn't support labor, still wants massive tax cuts and budget cuts to programs that can foster a reduction in unwanted pregnancies, or pushes for initiatives that do not meet our Core Values.

            no, I'm not thrilled with Casey being anti-choice, however, I do support him and this isn't the thread to discuss the merits of a Casey or similar politician.  It should be to create a climate of change in the culture to foster the votes to get the best possible councilmembers, state reps and state senators elected.  These are the people who will directly impact everyone's ability to obtain the medical treatment they need and deserve, regardless of financial circumstances.

            The most important word in the language of the working class is `solidarity.'--Harry Bridges, longshore union leader

            by Bendygirl on Wed Nov 16, 2005 at 07:33:30 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  The Democratic Party has (4.00 / 3)

              made Casey an issue.  He has self reported as supporting "legal protection of human life from conception".  He has self reported opposed to a woman's ''right to abortion''.  In his run for Treasurer these were his proclaimed positions.

              It (his candiacy and the messy preamble, leaky as a broken faucet) will be coming up when abortion, womens right to reproductive services and abortion availability issues arise.

              I doubt you can stop it or manage threads to suit promoting Casey.  Or suit defense of Casey.  The opinions of voters will out.

              I recommend the current issue of the New Yorker, the Peter J Boyer article is not online, for some (just some it is a slanted story imo) background.

            •  The main difference (4.00 / 3)

              Is that Casey has no tolerance for my views, or any views that are not in line with his. That is the anti-choice viewpoint. You say "bad analogy"? Why? We're talking about absolutist positions on his part, and leave-it-to-the-individual positions on the other part. Personally, if he does not recognize human rights of all persons, then I would not trust him on anything else. The Democrats want to be my "daddy"? They don't want my vote. Now, you can scold me about this sub-thread getting off topic, but I didn't bring it up. Besides, the point of the topic is that what Gabriela is going through is a direct result of laws by and attitudes of anti-choice people-- --and apathy, indifference and outright hostility from others. And thinking that Casey is going to change that is simply pollyanna-think, imho.
            •  This is the right diary (4.00 / 2)

              This is absolutely a valid thread to talk about Casey and his views on women's reproductive rights. If Casey has his way, what is happening to Ms. Flores could happen to every woman in the United States.

              Yeah, if he wins he is one more D in the Senate. He is also one more vote that the far-right can count one for certain social issues. For example,  if he was in the Senate right now he could not be counted on for a filibuster of Alito.

              Like it or not, reproductive rights is a core-issue to millions of voters. Pretending otherwise will not make it so. You think Casey and politicians of his ilk are the solution? Great. However, many of us don't share that belief. You are just going to have to accept the fact that this anti-choice candidate will be attacked throughout the next election cycle. And if he wins and casts a key vote against reproductive rights...

              thx,
              Eric

              •  ilk (none / 0)

                His ilk?

                I'm sorry you don't approve of Casey.  You don't have to vote for him, and he does have a primary challenger, so help him out instead.

                I'd prefer to look at the common ground that we have and work toward those solutions.  There is common ground here, we just need to find it and broaden it.  I refuse to give up on Casey or any other Dem who is anti-choice.  In the end, having a Specter or Snowe doesn't help core dem values unless your only value is choice.  I'm not that single minded to toss away Dem values and vote moderate R when in the end, those R's still vote for Frist to be Majority leader.

                The most important word in the language of the working class is `solidarity.'--Harry Bridges, longshore union leader

                by Bendygirl on Wed Nov 16, 2005 at 12:41:53 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  What are these core Dem values? (4.00 / 2)

                  I would really like to know, because every time I think I have an idea, they go and surprise me. They dropped the ERA since 2000, which shocked me. Their going along with the war drums astounded me. I just about threw up over the bankruptcy bill.

                  The polls show that most people have no idea what the Dems stand for.

                  And here all we have to do is hold up one -- one moral value that relates to the lives and constitutional rights of women -- and we're scolded.

                  So what are these core Dem values? And why do the Dems keep them a secret?

                •  Voting (none / 0)

                  Most people don't know much about their own senators, let alone the leadership of the senate. When a person is pulling that lever, they are more concerned about a politicians stand on a particular issue, as opposed to who they will vote for when it comes time to pick the senate majority issue.

                  Like it or not, there are many people who do vote based on a person's stand on a specific issue. Pitting Casey against Santorum may very well convince some of our voters to stay home out of apathy.

                  As for finding commmon ground with the anti-choice folks: what common grounn? How do I compromise with someone who wants to remove a woman's right to choose?

                  Core priniciples are all fine and dandy, but at the end of the day those principles have to translate to real policy. That is what really matters.

                  thx,
                  Eric

                  •  Common ground (none / 0)

                    has nothing to do with compromise.  It's about finding the things we can agree on and working for those things together.

                    I believe that there are those who can't be reached and who believe it's okay to murder doctors...these aren't the people I'm talking about.  I'm talking about prenatal care, health care from birth through the first year of school, education (and some do believe in sex ed to prevent pregnancies)... there are a whole host of things that we can forge ahead on.

                    Do some voters vote on one issue?  Yep, they do.  That includes my pro-choice friend who voted for Bush and still BELIEVES it was the right vote even though she hates him.  Why...terrorism.  She doesn't like what he's done, thinks the country is heading in the wrong direction, be she supports a strong military and that is her single issue vote.

                    I'm not a pollyanna.  And I don't believe in Casey because he's the winner in the race.  I think that's ridiculous.  I simply am a single issue voter (I suppose, but don't really support this for me) as I am a labor baby.  Too many long fought years for the rights Americans take for granted everyday and Santorum pisses away at every chance.

                    The thing for me is that I believe that (and I hate this tangent that we appear to be on) I stand a better chance to worship as I choose, raise my bi-racial daughter in a neighborhood that I choose and work for a company that will pay me a living wage...with a Dem.

                    If voters stay home, they stay home.  If more of them show up at the polls in the primary, perhaps you'll get the candidate you want.  But if that's not the case, then find the common ground that you can with Casey and work to get him to see your point of view.  He may never see it, but I believe it is almost always worth the try.

                    The most important word in the language of the working class is `solidarity.'--Harry Bridges, longshore union leader

                    by Bendygirl on Wed Nov 16, 2005 at 02:16:13 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  no common ground (none / 0)

                      it seems to me that there should be only one progressive position on this issue.  the best way i know to say it is by paraphrasing Dr Warren Hern in a letter he wrote to Bill Ritter, who's also a pro-fetal-life candidate as Casey is, but for the Democratic nomination for Governor of Colorado.

                      I want to see a Democrat return to the office of Senator of Pennslyvania, but not at the cost of reproductive freedom for the women of Pennsylvania, and not at the cost of freedom for Pennsylvania physicians to help them.

                      When the desire to win trumps doing what's right, you can count me out.

                      Casey's wrong about reproductive freedom. My fear is that if he is elected, for some women, he'll be dead wrong. i'll find no common ground with a candidate who holds anti-reproductive freedom views.

                      •  that's my fear (none / 0)

                        That none of us are running.  We all want candidates who support all of our views.  But if we aren't running, that is merely a luxury.

                        Fine, you don't like or trust Casey.  As I said upthread, fine.  But this is not the place to discuss it.  This is the place to discuss how to change laws in individual states and to help Ms. Flores.

                        Apparently, you and I will not agree about Casey.  I have no problem with that.  But there is common ground to be found, you simply have to look for it.

                        And I have never, not once, ever suggested (and you're implying the only reason to support Casey) that the reason to support Casey is because he can win.  I support Casey because other than Choice, he is a Democrat with the core Democratic Values I hold.

                        I'm sorry we can't agree on this, but I will be working for Casey this spring and through the remainder of the campaign.  I also plan to work for Sherrod Brown, but hey, no sense discussing that here either...it's off topic.

                        The most important word in the language of the working class is `solidarity.'--Harry Bridges, longshore union leader

                        by Bendygirl on Thu Nov 17, 2005 at 10:49:57 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't think he's even pro-labor (none / 0)


          Sure, he likes some unions.  Since reproductive rights are an important subset of labor rights, I don't see Casey as responsive to people who actually work.

          Sorry you couldn't spot the sarcasm.

          Ortiz/Ramírez '08

          by theran on Wed Nov 16, 2005 at 08:37:06 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  sarcasm? (none / 0)

            What sarcasm?

            The most important word in the language of the working class is `solidarity.'--Harry Bridges, longshore union leader

            by Bendygirl on Wed Nov 16, 2005 at 09:28:05 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Simply put (none / 0)

              Casey's values are anathema to those of my local.

              Casey's notion of what being pro-labor means are so outdated that he'd probably vote in favor of Chinese Exclusion if the GOP brought it up.

              The only reason Casey is held out as ``pro-labor'' on this site is to con liberal voters into supporting him.

              Again, sorry that you couldn't see the snark.

              Ortiz/Ramírez '08

              by theran on Wed Nov 16, 2005 at 07:54:45 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  I'm pro-labor too (none / 0)

        I'm a union member and a shop steward.

        So are millions of other people who, like me, are pro-choice.

        It's not either/or. It's that to be a good Democrat, you must be pro-labor AND pro-choice.

        They actually go together like a hand in a glove.

        Nice snark, btw.

        I'm not part of a redneck agenda - Green Day
        Neither is California High Speed Rail

        by eugene on Wed Nov 16, 2005 at 12:40:12 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  This makes me so angry (4.00 / 6)

    The laws in this country are just so crazy.  The fundies don't want abortion, yet they restrict access to any means that would REDUCE unwanted pregnancies.  Then, they have the NERVE to tell me they're not anti-women. Yeah. Right.  Once again, it will be women like Ms. Flores who will suffer.

    There's no point for democracy when ignorance is celebrated...insensitivity is standard and faith is being fancied over reason.-NoFx

    by SairaLV on Tue Nov 15, 2005 at 10:03:11 PM PDT

    •  You might (4.00 / 4)

      find this discussion in a diary by Parker at Booman Tribune, about that very issue, interesting:

      Here is my question... is this just a coincidence that:

      Suddenly pharmacists are "choosing" who gets birth control and who doesn't which increases unwanted pregnancies

      Push for abstinece only education -- which increases unwanted pregnancies

      Open warfare on abortion rights which increases unwanted pregnancies

      Turning up the volume of the "Shame Game" of female sexuality which increases unwanted pregnancies

      Refusing to legalise and OTC contraception that would bypass steps 1 to step 4 which increases unwanted pregnancies

      If I didn't know better I would swear the wingnuts are trying to increase unwanted pregnancies.  They are turning our girls into Third World Villageoises... uneducated and pregnant. This is a vicious cycle that is being played out. There seems to be a method to their madness. One can only conclude is that the wingnuts are herding women into their skewed perverted image of womanhood with limited choices:

      •  Sometimes they come right out and admit it (none / 1)

        Oh, you mean like our Baltimore local wingnut-

        Let's Have More Teen Pregnancy
        by Frederica Mathewes-Green

        http://www.frederica.com/...

        not just your usual run of the mill loopnut, click on her bio, here on her homepage-

        http://www.frederica.com/

        It's one of those articles you wanna keep in mind when you look at her books, like this-

        "Real Choices: Listening to Women, Looking for Alternatives to Abortion"

        'Cause if the goal is more teen pregnancy and no abortion there ain't much "real choice", let alone access, left.  

        barf.org : a resource for all who work to monitor and counter the Biblical America movement.

        by stormcoming on Wed Nov 16, 2005 at 07:22:26 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  They don't want teen pregnancies... (none / 0)

        What they want is for teens to have no options for birth control, because they think that if they can't get birth control, and don't have access to the morning after pill, then they won't have sex.  Fundamentalists believe that sex is wrong except for the purpose of procreation within a marriage.  They would like nothing better than to go back to the "good old days" when young women rarely had sex before marriage, and anytime they did have sex, and got pregnant, they were either shunned by society, or forced to marry the man who got them pregnant.  In their minds, the 50's really were like "Leave it to Beaver".  

        The major problem with their theory is that it doesn't work.  Young women and men have always had sex outside of marriage, and the social norms that forced women to live in shame or marry at 16 caused a lot of pain and poverty and bad marriages.  Lack of birth control or sex education won't stop teenagers from having sex - they'll just tell themselve they can't get pregnant if they do it standing up, or if they douche afterward, of if he pulls out before orgasm.  And how many teenager men do you know who would marry a girl if he got her pregnant?  

  •  Hard hitting, as usual, Media Girl ... (4.00 / 6)

    ...keep pounding.

    I am an anti-imperialist. I am opposed to having the eagle put its talons on any other land. -- Mark Twain

    by Meteor Blades on Tue Nov 15, 2005 at 10:19:22 PM PDT

  •  What happened to her kids? (4.00 / 8)

    She was put in jail for four months and could face two years if convicted.  This does not serve well the mother/child bond.  The kids could be severely negatively affected, perhaps for the rest of their lives, to be seperated from their mother for two years.

    I'm embarrassed to say that South Carolina is my home state.  I left there 16 years ago and still occasionally have nightmares about being forced to move back and trapped there.  Now I can put a real event to that feeling.

    Bastards.

    •  They'll just tell the kids mommy is a murderer (4.00 / 4)

      ...simple.  There's absolutely no concern for the woman or her family in any of these statutes.

      Our penal system is screwed up enough as it is. Jailing innocent women for no reason at all is going to make it even worse.

      Gotta make it somehow on the dreams we still believe. - R. Hunter.

      by mungley on Tue Nov 15, 2005 at 11:27:52 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I'm a middle-aged white suburban married male (4.00 / 14)

    With an upper-middle economic class income, an intact nuclear family consisting of a wife and two teenaged sons, and a professional occupation.

    ...and this diary makes me simultaneously sick and angry.

    Goddamn this fucking country.  Okay - not the whole country, but at certain times certain parts of it are fucking unbelievably stupid.

    How dare those bureaucrats and police in South Carolina interfere in this matter.  Damn it.  I'm so angry I can spit nails.

    This is why I'm pro-choice.  This is why the so-called pro-life contingent will never, ever persuade me, nor will it persuade millions of others.

    Although I hate the fact that this is happening, thank you, media girl, for posting this.  I needed a dose of pro-choice outrage.  This was just the medicine.  I wish it wasn't happening.

    •  This action against Ms Flores (4.00 / 2)

      is nothing but jack booted police state madness.
    •  I think you missed the meeting (none / 0)

      Where it was decided that pro-life only actually extends up until the moment of birth.  Once you actually exit the womb the fundamentalist religious nutters who would have us live our lives by a code designed to promote healthy living and social cohesion in ancient Palestine simply couldn't give a toss.

      Halley Seven, United States Nil - You see, it can be done!

      by ian1973uk on Wed Nov 16, 2005 at 05:48:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Love the Fetus, Hate the Child n/t (none / 0)

        O 4 O: Oregon for Obama!

        by smugbug on Wed Nov 16, 2005 at 06:09:35 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Hence the better frames of: (none / 0)

        pro-criminalization, anti-choice, or my personal favorite, forced-birth.  

        Pro-life is, in most cases, the Democratic position, as we, unlike Republicans, are resoundingly in the camp of making life better for women and their children.  You know, helping people.  Making others' lives better, and simultaneously bettering our own and all that.

        I wonder how many fewer abortions there would be if we even just managed to erase the mainly-right-wing-induced stigma of unwed motherhood.  I know that's just one way the forced-birth crowd shows their true colors, and I know that's not the issue for thousands of women like Ms. Flores.  It just seems to be a pretty big one - and often overlooked.

        War is NOT a preventative measure.

        by demandcaring on Wed Nov 16, 2005 at 12:50:38 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  She already spent 4 months in jail (4.00 / 3)


    This article has some more detail.
    http://www.counterpunch.org/...

    This is screwed up.

    My in-laws are from North Carolina, and they mock South Carolina on occasion.  Now I know why.

    Gotta make it somehow on the dreams we still believe. - R. Hunter.

    by mungley on Tue Nov 15, 2005 at 11:33:11 PM PDT

    •  My NC experience (4.00 / 3)

      I am from SC, and when I got knocked up in college, I went to NC for my abortion (to Asheville, about an hour drive from Clemson).  

      The state of NC required group counseling on birth control options before you were given your abortion, and my group of about 15 women had to sit in a circle and tell everyone about our choice (and then sign a state form state form).  When they got to me, I stated, "I had sex and got pregnant, which is now costing me $250 to not be pregnant anymore.  I think I'll go with not having any more sex."  The counselor told me "not having sex" was not an option.  ABSTINENCE was not a state-approved choice.  Priceless.

      But the clinic did give me a $50 discount for having a student ID.      

      •  Please tell me you're kidding (none / 0)

        I really want to believe that women aren't humiliated by having to "confess their sins" before having an abortion.  I always assumed that "counseling" would be done in private, with a reasonably sensitive counselor who would simply read what the law said she had to read and then move onto other matters. When I had an abortion in California, there was no counseling, no hassles, and no embarrassment.  It was physically uncomfortable, but really no worse than any other invasive medical procedure, which is as it should be.  How can it be okay to humiliate women?
  •  Constitutionality (4.00 / 4)

    If it's the right of a woman to have an abortion, I would think that, by logical extention, it can't be illegal to perform one on yourself, especially if there are no other practical options.  I'm generally anti-abortion, but this is so cruel that I'd definitely support a constitutional challenge to south carolina's criminalization of self administering abortion.  (Does this mean RU-486 is illegal?)

    What MIGHT be considered constitutional, however, is that the federal government could prevent a pregnant woman from leaving her home state to have an abortion ("regulation of commerce") and I could see that getting by. Again, even as an anti-abortion person I find that more than a bit disturbing.

    I certainly agree that we need to do more to help women and children so that they're less likely to have abortions, but let me advance another suggestion.

    If we want to protect life from conception onward (which I believe we should want to do, at least in general) then we should restrict fertility clinics from creating tons of zygotes for possible implantation even when most of them are destroyed.  This would certainly be within the realm of possiblity for a state legislature.  Has this ever been done in the US?  My suspicion is it has not, cause that would hurt Fertility Clinic$ and people wealthy enough to affort fertility treatments.

    One man gathers what another man spills

    by John Chapman on Tue Nov 15, 2005 at 11:53:16 PM PDT

    •  Law against performing abortion on oneself? (none / 0)

      I noticed this detail and was perplexed. On what legal grounds can the state pass a law against performing an abortion on oneself? It's a constitutionally-protected medical procedure. Can a  legal mind please tell me how South Carolina has jurisdiction over this?

      It's one thing for the state to regulate the medical care I can receive from my doctor. It's another thing for the state to regulate the medical care I give myself.

      "...leave it to our bureaucrats and our police to see that our papers are in order. At least spare us their morality when we write."

      by rjontiveros on Wed Nov 16, 2005 at 12:03:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Practicing medicine... (none / 0)

      ...without a license is illegal in most states. I'm guessing that they got her under some variation of that law.  I have to admit that this doesn't bother me.  I don't want women giving themselves drugs to abort themselves without medical supervision.  This is not acceptable.  What I want is for women to be able to go to any medical facility and get an abortion without any problems.  

      But sure as hell, I don't think that performing a medical treatment on YOURSELF because you are desperate should result in jail time.  It should be like laws against suicide - designed to provide the system with a way to help the person, not to punish them.  

  •  It amazes me (4.00 / 9)

    That what we consider criminal behavior is so subjective. In other countries birth rates are so much a part of public policy, that there are severe penalties for/haveing too many children (communist China, for example).

    When we begin to legislate family dynamic based on state mandated morality, we aren't just chipping away at civil and personal freedom, we are dissolving its core.

    To this end, why is it (in the words of the venerable Randi Rhodes)that those who feel the obligation to moralize for the rest of the country about family values love the fetus, but hate the child?

    If these people really cared about civil responsiblity and protecting the vunerable, we would not be facing historic budget cuts in Medicaid (targeted to affect children the most), child-support programs, school lunches, and education!

     Oh, well, as long as we looked after the fetus, I guess they're on their own from that point out.

    Reject
    H.R. 4241

    "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." ~George Orwell

    by txdem21 on Wed Nov 16, 2005 at 01:09:59 AM PDT

    •  What they really care about is controlling women. (4.00 / 8)

      Great article. The only problem is that these experiences need more media exposure. This story needs to be on Dateline or 60 Minutes, not just Daily Kos.

      Want to make a difference in the media war? Kill your cable, write a letter to the company and give that money to independent media.

      by HunterKiller on Wed Nov 16, 2005 at 01:29:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I, too, share the anger (4.00 / 9)

    expressed by many here.  

    Every time I hear some clown spout crap about "moderating" our stance on abortion rights, I want to scream.

    • Half of this nation's population is female.

    • A female is reproductive for roughly one-third of her life.

    It amazes me how people here feel empowered to deem control over thirty years in the lives of over half the nation's population a liability.  This is a civil rights issue that demands support and activism.  We are allowing the right (and apathetic left) to control women with reproductive Jim Crow laws--and it's a disgrace.   If someone had argued that black Americans were only entitled to their civil rights before the onset of puberty and after their early 50s, we'd be outraged.  

    I prefer this brand of Socratic inquiry, actually: WTF is wrong with you?

    by lightiris on Wed Nov 16, 2005 at 03:24:33 AM PDT

    •  Right on ! (none / 0)

      You comments are so right on, thank you! If the average American woman goes through puberty at age 12, and the average American woman goes through menopause at 50, then you are talking about approx. 38 years of an individual woman's life in which she will need to be praticing birth control in some form! (Either that or choose to be completely celibate). Some studies have shown that statistically most American women only want about two children. So in theory, deduct 18 months off for those two pregnancies and you are still left with about 35 years of the average American woman's life where constant vigilance will be required to prevent an unwanted pregnancy. Do people really think that at some point during those 35+ years a method might fail? That that woman deserves control over her own destiny for 35+ years of her life.

      The primary difference between intelligence and stupidity is that there are limits to intelligence.

      by Realbluegrrl on Wed Nov 16, 2005 at 10:09:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Medieval (4.00 / 2)

    Awesome ...

    How grotesque and Medieval.  What a country we have become!

    "Truck Stop Women," a New Film By Phil Gramm and John McCain.

    by bink on Wed Nov 16, 2005 at 03:49:26 AM PDT

  •  This surprises who exactly? (4.00 / 3)

    Everyone knows that Jesus said, "Blessed are the rich for they shall enjoy the privilege of their position in society".

    I drink your Republicans. I drink them up!

    by Splicer on Wed Nov 16, 2005 at 04:16:11 AM PDT

  •  You can bet your ass (4.00 / 3)

    That if the cons are successful in banning abortion everywhere, that the Bush daughters would still be able to easily get one should they slip up and risk embarrassing their parents.

    What these scumbags want to control is people's personal sexual behavior and more specifically women's sexual behavior... They could give a fuck about the unwanted children their policies would create.

    •  The Rich (none / 0)

      Since the Republicans are an uneasy alliance of the Fundamentalists and Corporate Capitalists, some people think the alliance might split if the Fundies actually got what they wanted, the ban on abortion. But I think now it's time to deliver to the Fundies and the Capitalists will just stand by and let it happen because it's their only hope of holding on to power. They can always afford trips to Canada or the UK for abortions.
  •  What a nightmare (4.00 / 3)

    I've had two children.  It would take a lot for me to have another abortion at this point, once you have carried a baby to term, it's a very different matter, so I cannot imagine that this wasn't a tough decision for her in the first place.

    And I can tell you, with a close friend who has had two miscarriages at 2 and 3 months, that's a extremely painful and gruesome business.  At 4 months, the fetus weighs about half a pound and is looking like a little baby.  This woman went through hell, and all because of that long list of undue burdens and our overpriced and wasteful health care system.

    I'm personally against abortion if the baby is healthy and has quickened (which takes place around 4 months), but I'm also 110 percent behind safe legal private access to abortion with the same level of accurate and nonjudgemental counseling that you get for a tubal ligation (which requires general anesthesia!).  No undue burden.  No more unwanted children.  No more torturing women just because they are poor.

    Oh, and universal health care, including birth control coverage, I want that too!

    "Civility costs nothing and buys everything." - Mary Wortley Montagu

    by sarac on Wed Nov 16, 2005 at 04:52:57 AM PDT

  •  If abortion gets illegal... (none / 1)

    If abortion becomes illegal, this is what will happen all the time.
  •  Abortion IS illegal for anyone who can't take off (4.00 / 2)

    work for several days and who doesn't have access to around $1000 at call.   Its that simple.  Cutesy laws or not.  

    This is WRONG WRONG WRONG.  Time to get the monsters out of Washington, DC.

    Remember- when the Republicans start accusing others of doing something they consider awful, it is because they are doing it and trying to cover it.

    by maybeeso in michigan on Wed Nov 16, 2005 at 06:13:03 AM PDT

  •  Undue Burden... (none / 1)

    This is an important message (though, as I've emphasized often, far from the only message) to send to Democrats in general and Democratic Senators in particular.

    Keep rubber-stamping right-wing judges and this is the result. Let someone like Alito on the Supreme Court, and you're going to hear one Gabriela Flores story after another. And it may not be confined to South Carolina or other deep red states either.

    Stuck Between Stations : Thoughts from a bottomless pool of useless information.

    by Answer Guy on Wed Nov 16, 2005 at 06:50:13 AM PDT

  •  heartbreaking BUT (none / 1)

    Whenever i hear a story like this i try to envision how the other side can justify their position.  I don't mean the politicians, but the people who aren't completely insane but vote republican.  Then I remember: The Welfare Queen.

    See, we present a case here and there of the horror of restrictions to getting a legal abortion and they throw out an example here and there of someone taking advantage of the welfare system.  We both discount the other side's examples as isolated incidents, and we get nowhere.

    Instead of 'Here is a single example of how horrible it can be' we need to engage the other side with a more realistic approach.  What are they trying to accomplish with their position? What are we? Because honestly, I think we all want essentially the same thing - in the case of abortion, to reduce, and even eliminate them.  Where we differ is how to make it happen.  They think the answer is to outlaw it, we think the answer is through education, birth control and economic improvement to reduce or ideally eliminate the need.  THAT is the frame we need to put around this issue.

    A similar frame can be constructed to deal with the isue of welfare, but I will save that for a diary/story about welfare...

    Bipartisanship: I'll hug your elephant if you kiss my ass

    by Uranus Hz on Wed Nov 16, 2005 at 06:51:49 AM PDT

    •  The mistake you make (4.00 / 4)

      ...I think, is assuming that the opposition is interested in stopping abortion at all. They oppose the proven methods to drastically reduce unwanted pregnancy, too -- birth control, Plan B, sex education....

      The only thing that unites their agenda seems to be subjugation of women, for that's what preventing women from having even access to birth control does. It also happens to put their other statements about feminism and divorced women and working women being "Nazis" and "witches" and the cause of everything from economic recession to the Katrina hurricane into perspective.

      Besides, the only thing "extreme" in the case of Gabriela is how she's been treated by the government. And she's not the only one.

      •  Another dangerous mistake (none / 0)

        that I see is assuming that both sides want the same thing, the end of abortion.  I would like it if women didn't ever have to make that choice because of purely economic terms, or even if we could turn our reproductive systems on and off at will, but even then there will be a need and even desires for abortions.

        "You can't expect people to have the virtue of purity when they are poor." -Bob Dylan

        by tryptamine on Wed Nov 16, 2005 at 11:36:16 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I do not concur (none / 0)

          The majority of people I have talked to about this isue who vote pro-life do so because they think abortion is wrong. They honestly believe that banning it will make it go away, or at least drastically reduce its occurance. You may think they are misguided, as I do, but I don't believe they have any sinister motives beyond that.

          Having said that, I think many of them are being used by those in power who DO have ulterior motives to subjugate women.

          But as far as it goes to get people to accept a pro-choice position, the only arguement that really has much of a chance of getting any pro-lifers to rethink their position is to frame it as I did.  'What is the best way to reduce the occurance of abortion?' It at least gets them to think a little, instead of a knee-jerk pavlovian response.  After all, there are plenty of people who are opposed to abortion who vote pro-choice, because they recognize that there are better ways to reduce the number of abortions than banning it outright.  Harry Reid for one.....

          Bipartisanship: I'll hug your elephant if you kiss my ass

          by Uranus Hz on Wed Nov 16, 2005 at 03:03:25 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I think you misunderstood me. (none / 0)

            I was merely saying that the ultimate end of reducing/stopping abortion is not something that both anti- and pro-choicers believe in.

            And honestly, I think there are better frames to be used in the abortion debate.  Such as reminding anti-choice people that by making abortions illegal, we are basically dooming 2 "people" to death, rather than just one.  Or reminding them of the other ugly consequences of illegalizing abortion, such as women like Gabriela or babies being left in dumpsters.  Rather than arguing over how many abortions a woman should have and when and why and where (issues that obviously neither side agrees with each other on), we should be yelling about how outlawing abortion will merely make it more dangerous.  The reachable ones will listen, and I tend to think (hope) that the reasonable far outnumber the unreasonable.

            "You can't expect people to have the virtue of purity when they are poor." -Bob Dylan

            by tryptamine on Wed Nov 16, 2005 at 07:11:35 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  don't quite understand. (none / 0)

      Canyou clarify the connection for me?  It seems like you are saying that the existence of the Welfare Queen (or the myth) supports their anti-choice position.  It seems to me the opposite-- if there are people living on federal assistance who have unwanted pregnancies, shouldn't we facilitate that to reduce the number of unwanted, state-supported children?-- that seems like something the anti-welfare-staters would approve of.
      •  connection (none / 0)

        I was not making a connection so much as drawing a parallel.  The right wants to end welfare by dragging out the tired cliche of the welfare queen abusing the system.  Similarly, we need to be careful not to let an individual example of an abortion horror story turn into a cliche, because I believe that ultimately that undercuts the importance of our position.

        Other responses to my original comment are more in line wth my thinking than I initially made clear.  It is the overal subjugation of women that needs to be the driving mantra, not these disturbing individual incidents.

        Let's not lose sight of the forest for the trees.

        Bipartisanship: I'll hug your elephant if you kiss my ass

        by Uranus Hz on Wed Nov 16, 2005 at 02:53:22 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  means test abortion (none / 1)

    if you make over 200K - you can't get one, period! We will track you from the time you become of childbearng age. Only allow the poor to get abortions and for free. Why should the rich have to pay for the welfare of poor children? The rich can afford to make babies. It is irresponsible for poor people to make more kids than they can afford without burdening the rest of us to pay for them. And no tax deduction for children if you are rich and only two if you are poor. It is time to stop encouraging bad behaviour.

    snark of course.

    www.honk4peace.org

    by Jean on Wed Nov 16, 2005 at 07:40:02 AM PDT

  •  Personally (none / 0)

    I think we need to start gelding men, starting with the rabid pro-lifers.
    </snark>

    I know that I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one... John Lennon

    by MagentaMN on Wed Nov 16, 2005 at 08:08:55 AM PDT

  •  Hey, Media Girl (none / 0)

    Got any links to an actual media report of this Gabriela Flores story?

    Did a google search and only found people reporting that other people are reporting it happened.

    Odd. Seems like it would have made the news.

  •  People think we are an advanced country (none / 0)

    where things like this cannot happen.  But we have been captured by cultists and now horrible things are possible in the names of "values" and "God".  Bush attack Iraq because "God made him do it".  How insidious and how awful that we have come to this point.  But still most people don't get that we have become hostage to the koolaid.
  •  How Far? (none / 0)

    Recently, my wife and I were talking about women's rights in this county - including reproductive rights - and why so many women in their 20s and 30s voted GOP, or didn't even vote at all. My wife, who is in her mid-30's, suggested that women of her generation took their rights for granted because they didn't have to fight for them.

    Many in the United States don't seem motivated unless they feel pain. Sadly, we may have to go further down the path of the far right before we can get people to care enough to fight.

  •  Can anyone clarify the South Carolina law? (none / 1)

    There are so many disturbing aspects to the story in this diary, that it seems silly to quibble about details, but I thought that requiring pregnant women to obtain their husband's permission for an abortion procedure was struck down by the Supremes a long time ago (in Casey?). That was considered an "undue burden."  Whereas, waiting periods and "counseling" have been upheld. Could someone please clarify that aspect of the South Carolina law that was featured in this post? I thought that even if a State passes a law such as this, it wouldn't be enforceable because the Supremes have already declared spousal notification an undue burden and until they revisit the issue say otherwise, that wouldn't be enforcable. Correct?

    The primary difference between intelligence and stupidity is that there are limits to intelligence.

    by Realbluegrrl on Wed Nov 16, 2005 at 09:50:12 AM PDT

  •  Some questions about this story (4.00 / 2)

    In order to fight this, we're going to need to understand what the other side is going to throw up.

    Was she a legal immigrant?
    What death fields are we talking about that she escaped from?
    Why did this woman wait until the fetus was four months old before seeking an abortion?
    What do most women do when they miscarry a fetus this age at home, with the remains?

    Stephanie Dray
    of Jousting for Justice, a lefty blog with a Maryland tilt.

    by stephdray on Wed Nov 16, 2005 at 11:30:16 AM PDT

Permalink | 100 comments