Let's Revive Childbed Fever! Back to the Future, Part 21

Yay! We're Reviving Childbed Fever! Back to the Future, Part 21

So, among all the other great news lately, there's this: in the two years since Texas banned abortion, rates of deadly sepsis, leading to maternal mortality, have skyrocketed.

Before the twentieth century, "childbed fever" (or "puerperal fever") was the name given to the septic infection that led to many women's deaths: "Before the advent of antiseptic practices—and, later, antibiotics to treat sepsis when it occurred—puerperal fever was almost always fatal. In the 18th and 19th centuries, there were between six and nine cases for every 1,000 deliveries, resulting in a death toll during that span of as much as half a million in England alone. Puerperal fever was far and away the most common cause of maternal mortality and was second only to tuberculosis among all causes of death for women of childbearing age."

Eugène Devéria,

La Mort de Jane Seymour,

Reine d'Angleterre (1847),

Musée de Valence

But now, in one more example of "back to the future," childbed fever is back!

As reported by ProPublica's Lizzie Presser, Andrea Suozzo, Sophie Chou, and Kavitha Surana, "Pregnancy became far more dangerous in Texas after the state banned abortion in 2021."

In their analysis of the life-threatening complications faced by pregnant women in Texas, the researchers focused first on rates of sepsis--infection--for women who were hospitalized after losing a pregnancy in the second trimester. 

Medical treatment is readily available for women in these circumstances: 

The standard of care for miscarrying patients in the second trimester is to offer to empty the uterus, according to leading medical organizations, which can lower the risk of contracting an infection and developing sepsis. If a patient’s water breaks or her cervix opens, that risk rises with every passing hour.

Sepsis can lead to permanent kidney failure, brain damage and dangerous blood clotting. Nationally, it is one of the leading causes of deaths in hospitals.

But in Texas, this medical treatment is now unavailable--doctors and hospitals are unable (or unwilling) to treat women for fear that their treatments will be regarded as an illegal abortion.

And so women are dying. The figures provided by the researchers are stark: In 2021, before the Texas abortion ban took full effect, "67 patients who lost a pregnancy in the second trimester were diagnosed with sepsis--as in the previous years, they accounted for about 3% of the hospitalizations."

But, those numbers have changed dramatically: "In 2022, that number jumped to 90. The following year, it climbed to 99."

Wait. There's more.

ProPublica zoomed out beyond the second trimester to look at deaths of all women hospitalized in Texas while pregnant or up to six weeks postpartum. Deaths peaked amid the COVID-19 pandemic, and most patients who died then were diagnosed with the virus. But looking at the two years before the pandemic, 2018 and 2019, and the two most recent years of data, 2022 and 2023, there is a clear shift:

In the two earlier years, there were 79 maternal hospital deaths.

In the two most recent, there were 120.

This is where we are now--a return not to the twentieth century or even to the nineteenth, but back to the eighteenth century and even earlier. While women have always died of childbed fever--it was recognized by the ancient Greek physician, Hippocrates--the number of cases of childbed fever grew after male physicians began to take over childbirth and delivery from midwives and, in particular, when childbirth moved from home to "lying-in" hospitals in the early modern period. As one example, an "epidemic" of childbirth fever was recorded in 1646 at the Hôtel-Dieu in Paris. (Laura Helmuth's "The Disturbing, Shameful History of Childbirth Deaths" is an excellent place to start reading if you're interested.)

So, you know, who needs all that modern medical treatment. Stuff like up-to-date obstetric care, sanitary practices, and antibiotics. Let's just go with bullshit and misogyny--what's the big deal if a few women die along the way, right?

I've written many entries in this blog noting women who died from childbed fever. Because of the popularity of the Tudors, I'll include a few names here. Jane Seymour, Henry VIII's third wife, is one of the more famous women who died of childbed fever--within two weeks of giving birth to the son that Henry VIII had so longed for, Jane Semour died. Henry VIII's mother, Elizabeth of York, also died of childbed fever, as did the woman who had been his sixth wife (but managed to survive him). Katherine Parr died after giving birth to a daughter, whose father, Thomas Seymour, was Jane Seymour's brother. 

The tomb of Katherine Parr,
St. Mary's Chapel,
Sudeley Castle

I don't usually link to Wikipedia pages--not because I don't value the resource a great deal (I donate regularly, and I suggest you do too) but because it's easily accessible to all. But I am going to link here to the list of notable women who died during childbirth or from complications to childbirth--it's an eye-opener. 

But even as I link you to “notable” women, every woman who suffers a terrible, unnecessary complication is notable to us—a beloved daughter, wife, partner, sister, friend, neighbor, even perhaps a mother already. She is a singular human being. 

Update, 7 May 2025: More data from Kavitha Surana, Lizzie Presser, and Andrea Suozzo at ProPublica:

As ProPublica reported earlier this year, the statewide rate of sepsis—a life-threatening reaction to infection—shot up more than 50% for women hospitalized when they lost a second-trimester pregnancy.

A new analysis zooms in: In the region surrounding Dallas-Fort Worth, it rose 29%. In the Houston area, it surged 63%. . . . 

This marks the first analysis in the wake of abortion bans that connects disparities in hospital policies to patient outcomes. It shows that when a state law is unclear and punitive, how an institution interprets it can make all the difference for patients.

Yet the public has no way to know which hospitals or doctors will offer options during miscarriages. Hospitals in states where abortion is banned have been largely unwilling to disclose their protocols for handling common complications. When ProPublica asked, most in Texas declined to say.

ProPublica’s Texas reporting is based on interviews with 22 doctors in both the Houston and Dallas-Fort Worth metro areas who had insight into policies at 10 institutions covering more than 75% of the births and pregnancy-loss hospitalizations in those areas.

The findings come as evidence of the fatal consequences of abortion bans continue to mount, with a new report just last month showing that the risk of maternal mortality is nearly twice as high for women living in states that ban abortion. 

As devastating as this article is, I cannot recommend it enough.

Update, 13 July 2025: More from ProPublica in the ongoing crisis in Texas for women: "A 'Striking' Trend: After Texas Banned Abortion, More Women Nearly Bled to Death During Miscarriage."

And beyond the effects of the Dobbs decision, women's health care--in particular maternity and childbirth treatment--will suffer as a result of the reduction in Medicare funding, as Jessica Grose makes clear in her New York Times op-ed, "Pregnancy Is Going to be Even More Dangerous in America."

The figures are dire:

Medicaid covers over 40 percent of births in the United States, and an even higher percentage in rural areas. According to an analysis from the National Partnership for Women & Families, a nonprofit advocacy organization, “144 rural hospitals across the country with labor and delivery units are at risk of closure or severe service cutbacks” based on the Medicaid cuts outlined in the bill. That’s in addition to the over 100 rural labor and delivery units that have closed or plan to close since 2020. . . . 

Cuts to Medicaid will have an impact on women across the country regardless of which community they live in. City maternity wards have also been closing, because labor, delivery and infant care are expensive. “Urban hospitals had the highest number of labor and delivery unit closures--299--between 2010 and 2022,” my newsroom colleague Sarah Kliff wrote in December.

A really "beautiful" bill, huh? 

Here's a revealing graph from a 2024 report in The Commonwealth Fund:

Two Days After . . .

Two Days After the Election (7 November 2024)

"Women have very little idea of how much men hate them."

 --Germaine Greer

The Female Eunuch (1970)

Did you really think it had all changed in the last fifty years? 

Back to the Future, Part 20: "Maternity Care Deserts"

March of Dimes Report: "Nowhere to Go: Maternity Care Deserts Across the US," Back to the Future, Part 20

I've been writing these "Back to the Future" reports since January 2017--for more than seven years years now, women have faced increasingly dire conditions in the U. S. So bad that I added a second series, "When Women Became No Longer Equal." (To view all the posts in these two series, click on the labels, below.) Let's hope that conditions improve after the coming presidential election.

You can download the entire
report by clicking here.

All that being said, the recent March of Dimes report on maternity care offers up more bad news for reproductive health. According to "Nowhere to Go," the reality of "maternity care" is that for many women in the U.S.--more than 2.3 million women, to be accurate--there is no "maternity care" at all. These women live in so-called maternity care deserts, where there is "not a single birthing facility or obstetric clinician." Some 1,104 counties--35% of U.S. counties--are maternity care desserts (p. 3). In addition, over 3 million women live in counties with "limited" access to obstetrical care, hospitals, or birth centers. 

From the report's "Key Findings" (p. 5):

• Living in a maternity care desert is associated with a 13% increased risk of preterm birth;
• Over half of counties in the US do not have a hospital that provides obstetric care; 
• Nearly 70% of birth centers are located within just 10 states. 

And, dangerously, "Fertility rates in rural counties and maternity care deserts are higher than urban and full access counties and are decreasing at a slower pace." 

It should be no surprise that women living in maternity care deserts also receive "inadequate" pre-natal care (page 11).

Much more information and analysis is included in the report, which you can download by clicking here.

From "Nowhere to Go," click here

Yay! Let's Bring Back the Comstock Act!

When Women Became No Longer Equal Part 15: Let's Bring Back the Comstock Act! 

I really couldn't decide which series of posts this one belonged to: "When Women Became No Longer Human" or “Back to the Future.” It could be either. Or both. 

Because after Dobbs, women lost their ability to make decisions for themselves and their future--they became a human-ish sorta thing. Almost but not quite human.

Seal of Anthony Comstock's 
New York Society for the Suppression of Vice
(founded 1873)

Then again, nothing like resurrecting an 1873 law and deciding it's just what we need now!

Both Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas called upon the Comstock Act during yesterday's oral arguments, FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, a case about access to the anti-abortion drug mifepristone. According to the Guttmacher Institute, medication abortions accounted for 63% of abortions in 2023, the year after the Dobbs decision--up 53% since 2020. So you can see why denying women access to mifepristone is high on the agenda . . . 

Alito rejected claims the Comstock Act was "obsolete" and wanted to know why the Food and Drug Administration hadn't considered the provisions of the Comstock Act before making its decision allowing access to mifepristone. Here's Alito: “This is a prominent provision. It’s not some obscure subsection of a complicated, obscure law. . . .  Everybody in this field knew about it.”

And here's Thomas: addresing the lawyers for one of the drug's manufacturers, he asked “How do you respond to an argument that mailing your product and advertising it would violate the Comstock Act? [The act] is fairly broad, and it specifically covers drugs such as yours.”

And here's the original Act for the Suppression of Trade in, and Circulation of, Obscene Literature and Articles of Immoral Use, first passed in 1873, when Ulysses S. Grant was president of the United States:

Every obscene, lewd, or lascivious, and every filthy book, pamphlet, picture, paper, letter, writing, print, or other publication of an indecent character, and every article or thing designed, adapted, or intended for preventing conception or producing abortion, or for any indecent or immoral use; and every article, instrument, substance, drug, medicine, or thing which is advertised or described in a manner calculated to lead another to use or apply it for preventing conception or producing abortion, or for any indecent or immoral purpose and every written or printed card, letter, circular, book, pamphlet advertisement, or notice of any kind giving information directly or indirectly, where, or how, or of whom, or by what means any of the hereinbefore-mentioned matters, articles or things may be obtained or made, or where or by whom any act or operation of any kind for the procuring or producing of abortion will be done or performed or how or by what means conception may be prevented or abortion may be produced, whether sealed or unsealed; and every letter, packet, or package, or other mail matter containing any filthy, vile, or indecent thing, device or substance and every paper, writing, advertisement or representation that any article, instrument, substance, drug, medicine, or thing may, or can be, used or applied, for preventing conception or producing abortion, or for any indecent or immoral purpose; and every description calculated to induce or incite a person to so use or apply any such article, instrument, substance, drug, medicine, or thing, is hereby declared to be a non-mailable matter and shall not be conveyed in the mails or delivered from any post office or by any letter carrier. Whoever shall knowingly deposit or cause to be deposited for mailing or delivery, anything declared by this section to be non-mailable, or shall knowingly take, or cause the same to be taken, from the mails for the purpose of circulating or disposing thereof, or of aiding in the circulation or disposition thereof, shall be fined not more than five thousand dollars, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

Here's the text of the law currently, as cited by Alito and Thomas, now titled "Mailing Obscene or Crime-Inciting Matter" (18 U.S. Code 1461):

Every obscene, lewd, lascivious, indecent, filthy or vile article, matter, thing, device, or substance; and

Every article or thing designed, adapted, or intended for producing abortion, or for any indecent or immoral use; and

Every article, instrument, substance, drug, medicine, or thing which is advertised or described in a manner calculated to lead another to use or apply it for producing abortion, or for any indecent or immoral purpose; and

Every written or printed card, letter, circular, book, pamphlet, advertisement, or notice of any kind giving information, directly or indirectly, where, or how, or from whom, or by what means any of such mentioned matters, articles, or things may be obtained or made, or where or by whom any act or operation of any kind for the procuring or producing of abortion will be done or performed, or how or by what means abortion may be produced, whether sealed or unsealed; and

Every paper, writing, advertisement, or representation that any article, instrument, substance, drug, medicine, or thing may, or can, be used or applied for producing abortion, or for any indecent or immoral purpose; and

Every description calculated to induce or incite a person to so use or apply any such article, instrument, substance, drug, medicine, or thing

Is declared to be nonmailable matter and shall not be conveyed in the mails or delivered from any post office or by any letter carrier.

Whoever knowingly uses the mails for the mailing, carriage in the mails, or delivery of anything declared by this section or section 3001(e) of title 39 to be nonmailable, or knowingly causes to be delivered by mail according to the direction thereon, or at the place at which it is directed to be delivered by the person to whom it is addressed, or knowingly takes any such thing from the mails for the purpose of circulating or disposing thereof, or of aiding in the circulation or disposition thereof, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both, for the first such offense, and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both, for each such offense thereafter.

The term "indecent", as used in this section includes matter of a character tending to incite arson, murder, or assassination.

The law has long been considered "effectively dead”--since the 1965 Griswold v. Connecticut decision and the 1972 Eisenstadt v. Baird decision, both recognizing the right to contraception, and the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. Tessa Stuart notes that even before Roe, “federal courts held Comstock only applied to unlawful abortions."

"St. Anthony Comstock, the Village Nuisance” 

Louis M. Glackens, 1906

(National Archives Museum)

But the Comstock Act is what's known as a "zombie law." I'm not a lawyer, much less a legal scholar, so here is Harvard University law professor Molly Brady's definition: "There is a phenomenon known in legislation when there are laws on the books that have been declared unenforceable by a court. The term for these is “zombie laws”—the idea being that these laws might come back, might reanimate, if, for instance, the court changes its position. So, actually, after Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a lot of the laws that were invalid under Roe v. Wade came back once Dobbs revisited Roe. These were examples of zombie laws." (For a more complete analysis, click here for Howard M. Wasserman's "Zombie Laws," Lewis & Clark Law Review.)

So the Comstock Act is back . . . and ready to be used for those who would like to deny access not only to mifepristone but to birth control pills and devices and any other "thing" right-wing zealots decide is "obscene, lewd, lascivious, indecent, filthy or vile"!

Cartoons like the one I've embedded, above, "St. Anthony Comstock, the Village Nuisance," may be funny, but the Comstock Act has been used to many horrific ends. Among others, see the cases of Ida Craddock, Victoria Woodhull, Alice Bunker Stockham, and Margaret Sanger. 

Here's a fine summary of the effects by Jonathan Freedman and Amy Werbel:

During the Comstock Law’s reign, millions of books, newspapers, magazines, prints, photographs and circulars were burned under court order. More than 3,000 persons arrested for violations of the Comstock Act served a total of 600 years in prison, most for writing about topics that today are widely accepted in society, including atheism, homosexuality and sexual health. Medical professionals writing about abortion or contraception were prosecuted, as well as "freethinkers" who believed in the separation of church and state. Gilded Age freethinker and editor D.M. Bennett was imprisoned for "crimes" including advocating for equality of the sexes.

Told Ya: These Guys Don't Think Women Are Human

When Women Became No Longer Equal, Part 14: A Veterinarian Knows That Women Are Just Like Livestock

Get a load of this guy, who has done "thousands of ultrasounds on animals" and says he knows more about "fetal development" than anyone, especially women. (Well, to be fair, he says he "probably" knows more about "mammalian fetal development" than anyone in the room he's addressing--the Wisconsin House Chamber.)

This is Wisconsin State Representative Joel Kitchens, an expert on the personhood and humanity of women because. well, he's done "thousands of ultrasounds on animals." I guess it makes sense--for Republicans like him, a woman is just a brood mare.

Also, he knows that "abortion is not healthcare." Tell that to the 66,000 sexual-assault victims in the fourteen states where abortion has been banned who have, since the 2022 Dobbs decision, suffered "rape-related pregnancies." I'm sure each one of them is feeling better about being forced to give birth to her rapist's child because you did ultrasounds on horses and cows. (Dobbs was decided on 24 June 2022--that's 66,000 "rape-related pregnancies" in the eighteen months since . . . )

Way to go, big dude. 

More Post-Dobbs News on Infant Mortality

When Women Became No Longer Human, Part 14: More Post-Dobbs News

I suppose this is great news for members of the forced-birth crowd, gratified by imposing their benighted views on women and reproduction. Mission accomplished, assholes! You're doing a great job not only in denying women personhood but also in making sure babies die while you're doing it! 

But I'm sure you're not worried about that unfortunate little side effect of your efforts to control women's bodies . . . 

A new study, published on 14 October 2023 in the American Journal of Preventative Medicine, reminds readers that "The United States (U.S.) has the highest infant mortality rate among peer countries. Restrictive abortion laws may contribute to poor infant health outcomes. This ecological study investigated the association between county-level infant mortality and state-level abortion access legislation in the U.S. from 2014–2018."

The report--"Abortion Restrictiveness and Infant Mortality: An Ecologic Study, 2014-2018"--is an analysis of pre-Dobbs data. I don't have access to the full report--it's behind a paywall that’s too expensive for me--but the summarized results presented in the abstract make the link between restrictive abortion laws and increased rates of infant mortality undeniable.

As summarized, "increased IMR [infant mortality rate] was seen in states with . . . restrictive laws, with the most restrictive . . . laws having a 16% increased IMR." And, as I have noted here in writing about previous studies, "Black IMR . . . was more than twice that of White infants."

As for the study's conclusions: "State-level abortion law restrictiveness is associated with higher county-level infant mortality rates. The Supreme Court decision on Dobbs v. Jackson and changes in state laws limiting abortion may affect future infant mortality."

Since I don't have access to the full study, you may wish to read more from Jessica Valenti's Abortion Every Day analysis--click here. Valenti's calling-attention to this study is the first I heard of it, which is a goddamn shame.

But, good work, forced birthers. . . . 

One Year after Dobbs . . .

When Women Became No Longer Human, Part 13: Women's Lives (and Deaths) One Year After Dobbs (24 June 2023)

As if maternal mortality rates in the United States weren't bad enough before Dobbs, a new study by the Kaiser Family Foundation (now KFF), "National Survey of OBGYNs’ Experiences After Dobbs," provides necessary data about the effect of the 2022 forced birth decision and its impact on medical professionals who specialize in women's healthcare.

You can access the full report by clicking here.

Meanwhile, here are the highlights (lowlights?):

Key Findings

ABORTION ACCESS AND CONSTRAINTS ON CARE SINCE DOBBS

• Since the Dobbs decision, half of OBGYNs practicing in states where abortion is banned say they have had patients in their practice who were unable to obtain an abortion they sought. This is the case for one in four (24%) office-based OBGYNs nationally.
• Nationally, one in five office-based OBGYNs (20%) report they have personally felt constraints on their ability to provide care for miscarriages and other pregnancy-related medical emergencies [emphasis added] since the Dobbs decision. In states where abortion is banned, this share rises to four in ten OBGYNs (40%).
• Four in ten OBGYNs nationally (44%), and six in ten practicing in states where abortion is banned or where there are gestational limits, say their decision-making autonomy has become worse since the Dobbs ruling. Over a third of OBGYNs nationally (36%), and half practicing in states where abortion is banned (55%) or where there are gestational limits (47%), say their ability to practice within the standard of care has become worse.
• Most OBGYNs (68%) say the ruling has worsened their ability to manage pregnancy-related emergencies [emphasis added]. Large shares also believe that the Dobbs decision has worsened pregnancy-related mortality (64%) [emphasis added], racial and ethnic inequities in maternal health (70%) and the ability to attract new OBGYNs to the field (55%).

ABORTION POLICIES AND CONCERN ABOUT LEGAL RISK

• Two-thirds of OBGYNs nationally (68%) say they understand the circumstances under which abortion is legal in the state they practice very well. However, among OBGYNs in states where abortion is restricted by gestational limits the share is lower (45%) compared to those practicing in states where abortion is available under most circumstances (79%) or banned (68%).
• Over four in ten (42%) OBGYNs report that they are very or somewhat concerned about their own legal risk when making decisions about patient care and the necessity of abortion. This rises to more than half of OBGYNs practicing in states with gestational limits (59%) and abortion bans (61%).
• Eight in ten OBGYNs approve of a recent policy change from the FDA that allows certified pharmacies to dispense medication abortion pills.

ABORTION SERVICES

• Nearly one in five (18%) officed-based OBGYNs nationally say that they are providing abortion services after the Dobbs About three in ten OBGYNs (29%) practicing in states where abortion is available under most circumstances offer abortion care, compared to just 10% in states with gestational restrictions. There were already large differences between states prior to the Supreme Court’s ruling. Many of the states that have abortion restrictions today had these or similar restrictions in place prior to the Dobbs decision.
• Nationally, 14% of OBGYNs say they provide in-person medication abortions, but only 5% say they provide telehealth medication abortions.
• In states where abortion is banned, essentially no OBGYNs offer abortions, except under very limited circumstances. Additionally, nearly half (48%) of OBGYNs in these states only offer information, such as online resources, to help patients seek out abortion services on their own, but 30% do not even offer their patients referrals to another clinician or any information about abortion.

CONTRACEPTION

• More than half (55%) of OBGYNs nationally say they have seen an increase in the share of patients seeking some form of contraception since the Dobbs ruling, particularly sterilization (43%) and IUDs and implants (47%).
• Nearly all OBGYNs offer their patients some form of contraceptive care, but only 29% make all methods of contraception available to their patients, including all three methods of emergency contraception (copper intrauterine device (IUD), ulipristal acetate/Ella, and levonorgestrel/Plan B).
• Only one-third of OBGYNs (34%) prescribe or provide all three methods of emergency contraception and one in seven (15%) do not provide any methods of emergency contraception to their patients. A quarter of OBGYNS (25%) only prescribe or provide Plan B, which is available over the counter.
• Availability of care via telehealth expanded greatly after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Today, almost seven in ten OBGYNs (69%) nationally say they provide at least some care via telehealth.

From "A National Survey of OBGYNs' Experiences
after Dobbs" (p. 15)

This is our brave new world.

Update, 29 June 2023: Here's a great link to Grace Haley's "A Year Without Roe: In the Data," posted at Jessica Valenti's Abortion, Every Day.

The data and research that's come out over these last few weeks paint a stark picture of our first year without Roe. We wanted to share with you what people’s lives have looked like by pulling out a few statistics to pay particular attention to. There are three main themes encapsulated by these reports: documenting the harm done by abortion bans, the shifting public view on abortion, and accounting for what the future will look like in the post-Roe world.

Update, 12 September 2023: For ways to address the problem of maternal mortality, see Mara Gay's NYT opinion piece, "America Already Knows How to Make Childbirth Safer" (click here).

Iowa Hates Rape Victims and Loves Their Rapists (Back to the Future, Part 19)

Iowa Halts Assistance for Victims of Sexual Assault, Back to the Future, Part 19

It's hard to know how to classify this post--I decided to put it in with my "Back to the Future" series, but it could work equally well with "When Women Became No Longer Equal," or I guess I could have started a whole new category, "Really Fucked Up Shit." 

But I just read in a CNN news story posted this afternoon that, in her review of "victim's services," Iowa's Attorney General, Breanna Bird (R, in case that isn't obvious), "has paused funding for emergency contraception and abortions for sexual assault victims." Yeah. Because one way to serve victims of sexual assault is to withhold essential services from them.

Of course, the Attorney General herself couldn't be bothered to respond to questions personally. Instead, she had her press secretary deliver this mealy-mouthed, pusillanimous comment: "While not required by Iowa law, the victim compensation fund has previously paid for Plan B and abortions. As a part of her top-down, bottom-up audit of victim assistance, Attorney General Bird is carefully evaluating whether this is an appropriate use of public funds."

No, no, no! It's not cruelty. It's not depraved indifference. It's not about denying a rape victim essential medical treatment if that's what she decides is best for her well-being. It's all about the "appropriate" use of "public funds." Except it's not exactly public funds that are used: "Funds for the program are entirely made up of fines and penalties paid by convicted criminals, rather than general taxpayer money – a point victim advocacy groups emphasize."

And, by the way, "Juveniles accounted for the majority of sexual abuse victim costs paid for by Iowa’s state victim compensation funds, according to a 2021 Iowa’s Victim Assistance report." So much for all Breanna Bird's "pro-life" horseshit.

For William Morris and Michaela Ramm's report in the Des Moines Register, which includes the history of the program and Breanna Bird's "policies" that "reflect [Bird's] larger anti-abortion push," click here.

For more on Plan B, from Whole Woman's Health, click here.

Wait, What???? The Eyes of God Are Tracking Your Period (But Don't Say "Period") . . . And You're Still Not Getting Equal Pay For All the Work You Do

When Women Became No Longer Equal, Part 12: The New Republic of Gilead Wants to Track Your Period (But Don't Say "Period") . . . And Make Sure You Stay Poor

I'll give you the great news about keeping your poor first, since it's nothing new, and I've posted about it many times over the years. 

The Pew Research Center has just published new data in "The Enduring Grip of the Gender Wage Gap." If you've been living and working and thinking, this clearly comes as no surprise, but even though there is nothing new, this report is still dispiriting:

The gender pay gap—the difference between the earnings of men and women—has barely closed in the United States in the past two decades. In 2022, American women typically earned 82 cents for every dollar earned by men. That was about the same as in 2002, when they earned 80 cents to the dollar. The slow pace at which the gender pay gap has narrowed this century contrasts sharply with the progress in the preceding two decades: In 1982, women earned just 65 cents to each dollar earned by men.

From the Pew Research Center,
"The Enduring Grip of the Gender Pay Gap"

And, as the Pew Research Center reports, this gap grows over a woman's lifetime:

Women generally begin their careers closer to wage parity with men, but they lose ground as they age and progress through their work lives, a pattern that has remained consistent over time. The pay gap persists even though women today are more likely than men to have graduated from college. In fact, the pay gap between college-educated women and men is not any narrower than the one between women and men who do not have a college degree.

From the Pew Research Center,
"The Enduring Grip of the Gender Pay Gap"

The report is worth a read, of course, particularly for its updated information about the ways race and ethnicity impact pay equity issues for women and for the ways education, motherhood, and marriage, in addition to age, are reflected in the wage gap. But there is really nothing new here--at my age, I feel like I could write these reports without access to any current data at all, so little has changed. And there is nothing hopeful at all in the concluding section, "What's next for the gender pay gap?" (For previous posts on pay equity, click on the label, below.)

And why is the "what's next?" section so useless. Because, as the report makes clear, "There is no single explanation for why progress toward narrowing the pay gap has all but stalled in the 21st century." 

Well, you can continue to analyze data, educational trends, economic factors, the changing workplace, and even the "sticky floors" that are underneath the "glass ceilings," but it's clear by now that those factors don't account for the problem. 

No one seems willing to say what seems most obvious to me: women don't count. Regardless of their age, education, race, ethnicity, marital status, or job, they still are not recognized as full human beings, whose worth is equal to that of men.

Which brings me to my next grim milestone on the path to dehumanizing women. The Eyes of God are watching . . . 

I would like to say I was surprised to learn that the state of Florida was thinking about keeping track of women's menstrual cycles. But I couldn't muster up surprise, much less shock or outrage. After the Dobbs decision, why the hell not take away one more bit of privacy and autonomy. 

To be specific, the Florida High School Athletics Association mandated a requirement for all student athletes--let's be clear, all women athletes--to provide detailed information about their menstrual history:

• “Have you ever had a menstrual period?”
• “How old were you when you had your first menstrual period?”
• “When was your most recent menstrual period?”
• “How many periods have you had in the past 12 months?”

This information would no longer be submitted on a paper form, turned in to a coach, but would be submitted in a digital form and submitted to school administrators. 

Clearly this information isn't necessary for knowing whether a young woman is in any condition to kick a soccer ball. Rather, as Sophie Haissen notes, 

As president of the Palm Beach County Democratic Women’s Club, Joan Waitkevicz, told The Palm Beach Post, requiring students to provide records of their menstrual cycle to play sports is “anti-choice and anti-trans politics rolled into one.” Collecting information on student athlete menstruation may seem innocuous or even standard practice in the best interest of their health, but, in the hands of a state government that has made overt attempts to oppress both cis women and trans folks, this data could cost already marginalized people their lives and mental health.

And there is little hope for keeping such data, once submitted, secure. Haissen reminds us that "we’ve already seen in other states how digital data has played a role in criminalizing young people for getting abortions. . . . States including Texas, Oklahoma, and Idaho have abortion bans enforced by citizens. In the process individuals are allowed to access others’ personal data to help argue their case."

Now the state of Florida's move was not a complete surprise--women had been warned that this was coming after the Dobbs decision, and American women were advised by many pro-choice groups to delete their period-tracking apps. Even the White House told women to be cautious about storing this information on their electronic devices, warning them that such data could be used against them. In fact, after the June decision, the Organization for the Review of Care and Health Apps reviewed the privacy policies of period trackers and found that 24 of the 25 apps examined shared data:

84% of the [24]  apps allowed the sharing of personal and sensitive health data beyond the developer’s system, with third parties. At 68%, the majority did so for marketing, 40% for research and 40% for improving developer services of the app itself.

So I breathed a sigh of relief when I read that the FHSAA voted to remove the questions about a female athlete's medical forms--and then I nearly choked, because the association decided to require students to provide the biological sex they were assigned at birth, replacing the earlier question simply asking the athlete's sex. Because, you know, Florida. 

Now, not to be outdone, Virginia decided to get in on the act. In February 2023, Virginia State Senator Barbara Favola introduced Senate Bill 852; if enacted the law would have ensured women's privacy and bodily autonomy, shielding their stored menstrual date from law enforcement search warrants. 

These guys won't be satisfied until
we're all in Gilead
Photo: Calla Kessler for The Washington Post, via Artsy

It should come as no surprise that Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin (R) opposed the bill and helped to defeat it. Senate Bill 852 passed in the Senate by a bipartisan vote of 31-9. Half of the Senate's 18 Republican senators supported the bill. But once it reached the Virginia House, dominated by Republicans, a subcommittee voted 5 to 3 to table the bill. For many in Virginia, this is a "harbinger of plans to prosecute" those who seek abortions.

And let me remind you: in 2019, before the Dobbs decision, Dr. Randall Williams, director of the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services, testified that his office, using state medical records, had created a spreadsheet tracking the periods of women who visited Planned Parenthood. 

And while the Trump Administration couldn't manage to keep track of the migrant children separated from their parents, they were quite focused on tracking the menstrual cycles of migrant girls who were in custody, carefully preserving all the details of their periods.

So, with four years of history, these precedents, and courts packed with Federalist Society judges, a single one of whom can make yet another decision to deny all women the ability to control their own bodies, what's next? 

Update, just hours after posting: Looks like I was right about what's next. In his speech to CPAC, Trump promises that, if he is re-elected, "We will support baby bonuses, for a new baby boom! Oh, you men out there are so lucky. You are so lucky, men." This is some real Handmaid shit. Keep them struggling for fair pay, track their periods, deny them control of their reproductive systems, and "boom"! Life will be good, guys--handmaids everywhere! 

If you've got the stomach for it, you can listen to it here.

Update, 28 March 2023: The Idaho state legislature is on the bring of a draconian new abortion bill. A few days ago, the Idaho House of Representatives passed House Bill 242, "amend[ing] and add[ing] to existing law to provide for the crime of abortion trafficking." Now it doesn't seem to me as if the bill "provides for" traveling out of the state for an abortion, as in funding it or making it possible. Rather, it is all about making sure a girl cannot be helped if she seeks reproductive care.

According to the bill, "An adult who, with the intent to conceal an abortion from the parents or guardian of a pregnant, unemancipated minor, either procures an abortion, as described in section 18-604, 18 Idaho Code, or obtains an abortion-inducing drug for the pregnant minor to use for an abortion by recruiting, harboring, or transporting the pregnant minor within this state commits the crime of abortion trafficking."

This law makes "abortion trafficking" a felony, punishable by two to five years in prison. The bill's sponsor, State Representative Barbara Ehardt (R, of course) notes that abortion is already illegal in Idaho, so the bill isn't about abortion--the intent is to limit the a minor's travel outside the state. And for now, it's just to limit her travel "without the permission of the parent."

The Idaho Senate received the bill from the Senate State Affairs Committee and stands ready to pass it.

Erhardt claims this is all about parental rights, insisting that "A parent absolutely still has the right to take their child across the border and get an abortion. . . . The parent still has the right to cede that power and authority to someone else, such as a grandparent or an aunt, to take that child, should they be pregnant, across the border and get an abortion.”

Yeah, right. Wonder how long before they just go ahead and limit the ability of any female of any age whatsoever to leave the state at all . . .

"Are you pregnant, Grace? Step out of the vehicle." For a prescient video, published by Meidas Touch back in June, click here.

Update, 5 April 2023: The Idaho Senate passed the "abortion trafficking" bill on 30 March 2023, and the Republican governor signed it into law today. (Just the day before, he signed a bill banning gender-affirming care for trans youth and making it a felony "for doctors to provide such care to minors.")

The governor says it’s all about how much Idaho wants to "protect" children. In 2023, Idaho "ranks 36 [of the 50 states in the U.S.] in terms of education. Idaho is 34 in educational attainment and 32 in quality of education." Idaho's child poverty rate is 14.4%. In Idaho, 1 of every 8 children doesn't have enough to eat (in some parts of the state, it's 1 of every 5).  Idaho's maternal mortality rate ranks 36 out of 50 U.S. States, its infant mortality rate ranks 34th. Idaho ranks 21 [of 50] for child and teen death rate ("child and teen death rate reflects a broad array of factors: physical and mental health; access to health care; community factors; use of safety practices and the level of adult supervision"). Idaho earns a grade of F for gun safety--ranked 48th of 50 for the strength of its gun laws and 25th for its gun death rate. And, hey: "Guns are the 2nd-leading cause of death among children and teens in Idaho. In Idaho, an average of 21 children and teens die by guns every year, of which 84% of these deaths are suicides and 10% are homicides.”

I can think of lots of legislative action Idaho could take to better "protect" its children. Making up weird new crimes ("abortion trafficking") and criminalizing the actions of those who aid young women in times of personal crisis aren't on my list. Try feeding those hungry kids for starters . . . 

Update, 7 April 2023: And here we go--a single nut job judge, appointed in 2019, has now decided what women--half of the U.S. population--can and cannot do with their own bodies. One guy has all this power over all women . . . Think about it. But he's just protecting you, little ladies: he's done it so "that women and girls are protected from unnecessary harm.” Because, obviously, you're just too stupid to be able to make such decisions yourselves.

Update, 12 April 2023: You just can't make this stuff up. Republicans in Florida want to track girls' periods, but for god's sake, DON'T TALK ABOUT MENSTRUATION! A new bill (House Bill 1069) was passed by the state house late in March and is now in the hands of the lawmakers in the Florida Senate: "The bill proposes banning any form of health education until sixth grade and would prohibit students from asking questions about menstruation, including about their own first periods, which frequently occur before the sixth grade. If passed by Florida's Senate and signed into law by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis, the ban will be effective July 1." (For one of just a number of news stories on this, click here.) In other words, "Don't say period, people!" 

Here's the bill, [Florida] House Bill 1069.

Update, 13 April 2023: Oh, and while they're at it, they need you to have more white babies--and Nebraska Senator Steve Erdman isn't afraid to say it out loud. During debate over a new forced-birth law in Nebraska, he "argued that abortion had caused slow population growth in the state over the last half-century—and argued that it had hurt Nebraska economically":

Our state population has not grown except by those foreigners who have moved here or refugees who have been placed here. Why is that? It’s because we’ve killed 200,000 people. These are people we’ve killed.”

If women had been forced to give birth, as he was now proposing, then everything would be great, and there would be more people "working and filling some of those positions that we have vacancies.”

To read Cameron Joseph's report on Vice--and, even better, watch Erdman delivering this oration in all its dumbassery, click here.

Update, 31 October 2023: Welp, that didn't take long. The state of Idaho's "abortion trafficking" law (see above, the 28 March update) went into effect in May of this year--and the first arrests for "abortion trafficking" have now been made. As Jessica Valenti reports, 

an Idaho teenager and his mother were arrested for bringing the teen’s girlfriend out-of-state for an abortion. The pair were charged with multiple felonies, including second degree kidnapping, for taking a minor under 16 years-old “with the intent to keep or conceal [her] from her custodial parent...by transporting the child out of the state for the purpose of obtaining an abortion.”

But, hmmmm, the arrests weren't made under the draconian, Gilead-ish law, which is under appeal. Again, quoting Valenti: "instead of citing the trafficking statute, prosecutors used the exact language of the trafficking law in the kidnapping charge."

These assholes are sooo slick, huh? Like we wouldn't notice . . . 

It's a terrible story all around--nobody comes out looking good, but no official seems to have cared about any of the many problems manifested in this case (drugs, coercive control, abuse, totally fucked up families) until a fifteen-year-old traveled to Oregon to have a medical abortion. 

Update, 23 July 2024: Just so you know, turns out Trump's VP pick, that hillbilly himself, J.D. Vance, is a big advocate of "menstrual surveillance." Of course he is . . . 

Time to Cover Up, Ladies . . .

When Women Became No Longer Equal, Part 11: It's Time to Cover Up, Ladies

I usually write quite a bit when I'm launching into a good rant. But, for once, I'm just gonna put this out here, in case you missed it:

The Republican-controlled Missouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day Wednesday to tighten the dress code for female legislators, while leaving the men’s dress code alone.

Women need to wear a jacket over their dress or with their skirt and pants. Cover up those bare arms, you hussies! 

The Missouri House, where women "hold less than a third of the seats,"
and where this bit of legislation will undoubtedly encourage more 
women to run to become a state representative . . . 

To be honest, I'm sorta shocked women are "allowed" to wear pants. But I notice that the dress code does not say a woman needs to wear a blouse, sweater, or other top under her jacket . . . Hmmmm. 

Love this tweet, from Democratic member Peter Merideth: 

(It is also fun to note that the Republican woman spearheading this drive to ensure her female colleagues were dressed "professionally" was wearing sequins and velvet on the House floor. Yeah. Wonder what kind of job she thought she was going to . . . )

Here's a great line from The Riverfront Times: "Missouri Republicans aren't done telling women what to do with their bodies."

Ballot Drop Boxes? Oh, hell no! Baby Drop Boxes? Yeah, baby!

When Women Became No Longer Equal, Part 10: Drop Boxes for Ballots? No. Drop Boxes for Babies? Yes.

As we approach the 2022 mid-terms, Republicans continue their efforts to limit access to voting, and one of their favorite targets is the ballot drop box. Not to be confused with a drop box of which they entirely approve, a baby drop box. 

Or, to put it more simply, a drop box for ballots? Ohmygod, NO! That's not a safe place to leave a paper ballot. A drop box for babies? Yay, of course! That's a perfect place to leave a  baby. 

Isn't this great?
A baby drop box!
(Joseph C. Garza,
Tribune Star)

Mind you, ballot drop boxes are nothing new. More than twenty years ago--in 2000--the state of Oregon became the first state to eliminate traditional polling places entirely and to rely exclusively on mail-in ballots, the new system including drop boxes in addition to post boxes. 

In Washington state, where I live, I haven't had to line up on Election Day to cast a vote at a polling place since 2011, when an all-mail ballot system was adopted. I usually just returned my ballot in the mail, but on a couple of occasions, I didn't have a stamp, so I used a drop box, located at the public library just a few blocks from my house. 

And, then, after 2018, I didn't need to find postage any more. I could slip my completed ballot into the mail for my letter carrier to pick up, but if I completed the ballot on Election Day and wanted to make sure my vote counted, I could still deposit it in a drop box.

Mail-in voting--along with the convenience of ballot drop boxes--has proven to be popular and trouble-free. The widespread availability of ballots drop boxes has also improved voter turn-out: 

As data from Washington state show, more people chose to use drop boxes in every single election in almost every county in the state to a record high of 73% in 2020. Election clerks in Utah similarly observed that drop boxes grew more popular every year. Notably, Republican- and Democratic-led states alike used them for years without controversy.

But making it easy for voters to vote? Obviously Republicans decided they had to shut that down right away, even in the midst of a global pandemic. And so, with increasing fervor and fever-induced tales of fraud, they've done their best to eliminate ballot drop boxes entirely. 

It was Donald Trump (who else?) who stoked the rage against ballot drop boxes with a tweet (just one in a series of violations before he was banned from Twitter . . . ):

Tweet reproduced from The Verge

Right on cue, the Republican Secretary of State in Ohio reduced the number of ballot drop boxes to one in each county, and required that box to be located at the county board of elections. This "contentious order" was reissued in 2021, and the same limited access to ballot boxes is still in place for the 2022 elections.

Texas Governor Greg Abbott followed, issuing a similar decree limiting each county to one drop box, an order that was challenged in both state and federal court but ultimately upheld "by the all Republican" Texas Supreme Court. One drop box per county, regardless of whether the county is populated by 64 people (Loving County) or 5.7 million people (Harris County). Seems fair, right?

In Tennessee, the Secretary of State testified before a U.S. Senate committee that "drop boxes could enable people to violate a state law against collecting ballots," while in Missouri, the Secretary of State decided against using drop boxes--boxes that had already been purchased--because "we didn't want to confuse voters." (I find drop boxes very confusing, don't you?)

The Trump campaign brought suit in Pennsylvania to stop the use of drop boxes in the fall of 2020, and then when that suit was thrown out of court, decided to videotape voters who were dropping off ballots at drop boxes (nothing wrong with a little intimidation, right?) and then threatened to sue again. A similar lawsuit was filed in Michigan. The court decided against the plaintiffs and then denied a request for an appeal. 

Not to be outdone, Republicans also filed a suit to eliminate drop boxes in the state of Wisconsin. Just weeks ago, in July 2022, after much legal wrangling, the Wisconsin Supreme Court weighed in--drop boxes are illegal.

And so it goes in the effort to disenfranchise as many voters as possible:

Iowa’s new law restricts drop boxes to a single box at the office of the county election commissioner that will be inaccessible when the office is closed. Florida’s Senate Bill 90 restricts drop boxes to early vote locations and requires them to be monitored in person at all times. . . . [N]oted conspiracy theorist and Arizona State Senator Wendy Rogers (R) has prefiled a bill in Arizona that restricts both drive-thru voting and drop boxes in a state with a long history of voting by mail and even has a permanent absentee voter list open to all voters. In Georgia, Republicans decided the restrictions they enacted last year didn’t go far enough and the Senate president has introduced a new bill that would ban drop boxes completely. Even in Utah, Republicans are cooling on drop boxes, with a group organizing to put an initiative on the ballot in 2022 that would eliminate mail voting entirely and drop boxes with it.

But here's the thing. WHILE DROP BOXES FOR BALLOTS ARE INSECURE AND DANGEROUS, DROP BOXES FOR BABIES ARE JUST FINE.

Just to be clear. This is dangerous and crazy: 

This will not keep a ballot safe.
(A King County, WA ballot drop box, King County Elections.)

But this is great:

This is perfect for a baby.
(An Indiana baby drop-box.)

Yes, this is the perfect solution for American women who are now second-class citizens, who are now no longer fully human, no longer rational and autonomous beings who are entitled to make decisions about their own lives--women who are living under the new forced-birth regime. 

A baby box is the Judge Amy Coney Barrett-approved solution for all those women who have been denied the ability to control their own lives. Don't want to endure a forced pregnancy? What's the big deal? A few months of effort and you can just give birth and dump your unwanted newborn into a "safe haven" baby drop box, then continue on your way to Starbucks or the nail salon. Problem solved. The baby box is perfectly safe! The baby box is perfectly secure! And it's totally "private"--unlike ballot drop boxes, baby drop boxes are not under 24-hour surveillance!

 It also helps to alleviate one of Judge Samuel Alito's big worries, a shortage in the "domestic supply of infants"! Don't want to have a baby? Well, that's too bad, have one any way, then pop it into a baby drop box, and do your part to help meet the demand! (For Alito's worry about the "domestic supply of infants," see page 34, note 46 of Dobbs v. Jackson. the opinion he authored.)

A medieval baby box, 
ruota degli espositi ["wheel of the exposed"]
Ospedale Santo Spirito,
Rome

I might add here that, if ballot drop boxes are nothing new, neither are baby drop boxes. 

In his history of infant abandonment, The Kindness of Strangers: The Abandonment of Chidlren in Western Europe from Late Antiquity to the Renaissance, the late historian John Boswell explains how the subject first came to his attention:

While collecting information about early Christian sexual mores for a previous study, I came across the argument by several prominent theologians of the early church about why men should not visit brothels or have recourse to prostitutes because in doing so they might unwittingly commit incest with a child they had abandoned. "How many fathers," asked Clement of Alexandria, "forgetting the children they abandoned, unknowingly have sexual relations with a son who is a prostitute or a daughter become a harlot?" "Those who use the services [of prostitutes,]" Justin Martyr warned, "may well commit incest with a child, a relative, or a sibling."  

At first I was stunned by how peculiar and oblique an argument this was . . . but in the end I found even more surprising the implication that the writers' contemporaries abandoned children so commonly that a given father was likely to encounter his own child in a brothel? Was this possible? . . . I never imagined that [the abandonment of infants] was a widespread or common practice, and certainly had not thought that Christians abandoned babies.

Something to think about in this brave new Republican world, isn't it? You can't get an abortion, so you use a handy baby drop box. Who knows where--and when and how--you might run into this child again? Not that either of you will know your paths have crossed--for more than a decade, the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child has opposed the use of baby boxes, which "contravenes the right of the child to be known and cared for by his or her parents":

UN officials argue that baby hatches violate key parts of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) which says children must be able to identify their parents and even if separated from them the state has a "duty to respect the child's right to maintain personal relations with his or her parent. . . . "

No worries about any inconvenient meet-ups, right? 

Another medieval baby drop box,
Ospedale degli Innocenti,
Florence

So, as a woman, you may no longer be equal in the United States, and you may discover that it is increasingly difficult to find a ballot drop box near you, but with any luck at all, there is a baby drop box conveniently located right around the corner!

Are we living in the best of times, or what?

As a note: I've posted this as part of a post-Dobbs series, "When Women Became No Longer Equal," but given the medieval foundling wheel precedent for baby boxes, I might just as well have posted it under an earlier, equally disgruntled, series, "Back to the Future." (To read more posts in either series, click the label below.)