Discussion
  • Read More
    bagoflettersAnna Merlan
    2/22/16 9:06am

    couldn’t a case be made for placing “undue burden” on women in particularly restrictive states?

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Anna Merlanbagofletters
      2/22/16 9:09am

      That’s essentially what the upcoming Supreme Court case is about! SCOTUS is going to have to make some decisions about what undue burden really means.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      ahakkibagofletters
      2/22/16 9:10am

      Yes, this is currently in the courts (I think he mentions it in the video, not sure tho)

      http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cas...

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    ThirdAmendmentManAnna Merlan
    2/22/16 9:12am

    Conservatives, they’ll place an insane number of restrictions and laws for a safe and simple medical procedure but God forbid you place some basic restrictions and laws on gun purchasing and ownership!

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      MayotonillaThirdAmendmentMan
      2/22/16 9:30am

      If men got pregnant the right to an abortion would be the first amendment.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      ThirdAmendmentManMayotonilla
      2/22/16 9:38am

      And the right to at least 6 months of paid leave.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    amaroramaAnna Merlan
    2/22/16 9:17am

    Sorry, but is the snark aimed at him for “noticing” this really necessary? I haven’t been able to watch the video yet, but judging from his past segments I really doubt he’s guilty of any mansplaining or something similar. Why not simply praise the show for doing a (presumably) well-informed piece on this issue and for bringing some generally unknown facts to the public eye?

    Thanks, John Oliver, for glancing at the clock all of us have been living beneath and realizing what time it is.

    This just feels like an underhanded jab that is saying because he didn’t address this issue on the very first night his show aired, it’s not good enough.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Bootsandcatsandbootsandcatsamarorama
      2/22/16 9:25am

      Agreed, I thought he covered the issue well, and he’s covered other feminist issues on the show previously

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      zerokeiamarorama
      2/22/16 9:25am

      I get the impression that the snark would have been there regardless of when it aired.

      But what purpose it’s supposed to serve I can only guess. The article itself mentions at least one reason why bringing attention to abortion access right NOW might be timely, but not why I’m supposed to feel like John Oliver deserves condescension for bringing it up now.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    Bears for PresidentAnna Merlan
    2/22/16 9:21am

    I love John Oliver and think he does good jokes and talks about good subjects but I think he’s falling into the same sort of trap Stewart and Colbert did where it frequently comes off like they think that these shitty policies spring out of nowhere or, if not that, that they’re top down results of shifty politicians doing shifty things.

    I don’t know. Sometimes it’s not enough just to call bullshit, sometimes you might want to address why the floor is covered in it.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      SeabassyBears for President
      2/22/16 9:46am

      Did you watch the entire clip? He does more in 16 minutes to explain and provide context for the upcoming Supreme Court case than any article I’ve read about the subject — and I’m IN the abortion field and have a comprehensive understanding. He’s aiming for a broad audience who might be liberal-leaning, but not necessarily up-to-speed with why this issue is so important.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      Bears for PresidentSeabassy
      2/22/16 10:51am

      I watched the episode last night, sure. But honestly, do you think there’s a lot of people out there who are the types to A) watch John Oliver and B) Not be aware of the existence of these laws and C) aren’t able to immediately see through the bullshit justification of these laws being about “women’s health”?

      How many people last night do you think really came away surprised that those laws passed by Republican legislatures that closed abortion clinics seem to have an ulterior motive?

      I don’t doubt good intentions here an sure there’s a value in exposing the depth and the scope of the issue but the “What the fuck is wrong with the 19%”(and, let’s be real, two of the other three groups) is the pressing issue and the sort of “Don’t worry about the motivations of the millions and millions of people whose actual agenda these issues represent, let me just shout into the echo chamber some more” stuff that these shows play around seems...misguided.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    benjaminalloverAnna Merlan
    2/22/16 9:30am

    The story about the 13 year old rape victim is heartbreaking. If that doesn’t meet the standard of “undue burden”, such a phrase is well and truly meaningless.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      anyah8sbunniesbenjaminallover
      2/22/16 1:33pm

      Tears during that.. watching the woman tell that poor girl’s story was heartbreaking

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      VulcansAreHeartbreakersanyah8sbunnies
      2/22/16 2:10pm

      And I bet she has at least 100 more heartbreaking stories like that. She’s a true hero for just being in that field.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    UrbanAchieverAnna Merlan
    2/22/16 9:40am

    I remember when abortion became legal and the first PP clinics that provided abortions. There were no picketers, there was just a collective sigh of relief across political, religious and societal lines that women could stop dying from clothes hanger abortions.

    From a Slate article: “In June 1972, a Gallup poll showed that 64 percent of respondents-including 68 percent of Republicans and 56 percent of Catholics-agreed with the statement that “the decision to have an abortion should be made solely by a woman and her physician.”

    Then the issue of abortion was reinvented as a political wedge issue - it brings in a committed group of voters passionate about this particular issue, and they will vote for politicians who support rolling back reproductive rights and abortion access. (Ditto for gun control.)

    It is no coincidence those same politicians are also funded by and support a range of conservative issues that have nothing to do with abortion and everything to do with taking care of those with money and power - and as they have shown time and time again, they are perfectly willing to throw any number of groups under the bus to achieve their oligarchic goals. They treat their constituencies like patsies, which sadly, is exactly what they are if they are one-note voters.

    I don’t doubt that some of the legislators actually hold personal anti-choice views, but by only representing what is small minority of truly anti-choice lobbyists (according to John Oliver’s statistics, fewer than 1 in 5 people are completely anti-choice), they fail in their task as being elected representatives of their entire municipality, county or state.

    But then, it wasn’t really about abortion in the first place. It was about getting people into the right positions using abortion as a stepping stone.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      DCDougUrbanAchiever
      2/22/16 9:48am

      I’m sure if getting an abortion was a FOIA disclosure there would be sooo much less push against it...

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      KormanmattUrbanAchiever
      2/22/16 11:24pm

      You get onto a good point that a lot of political writers have noticed, namely Thomas Frank. Who, and I’m paraphrasing, states that a lot of GOP members just use Pro-life activism as a means to gets votes, even though they don’t have real hopes of ever repealing Roe v. Wade, because such a huge amount of the remaining voters the party has will consider that over any and all political issues. Precisely, issues that economically fuck them over.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    atlasAnna Merlan
    2/22/16 9:20am

    i dont think you paid attention enough to what last nights episode was REALLY about

    GIF
    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Schmusekatze is a ninja!atlas
      2/22/16 9:49am

      They were so cute! And the one they brought into the studio! *melts*

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      atlasSchmusekatze is a ninja!
      2/22/16 10:14am

      o god, i somehow forgot about that one, the little night cap :3

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    bonsaihulahulaAnna Merlan
    2/22/16 9:22am

    THANK GOD that someone is finally explaining why TRAP laws are bad to a huge audience, in an accessible way. A lot of mainstream media sources really drop the ball on that issue because they explain that anti-choice opponents say the laws protect women’s health, and then don’t explain why they actually do the opposite. Especially NPR.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Seabassybonsaihulahula
      2/22/16 9:50am

      Agreed. The new TRAPPED documentary is supposed to be really great. I’m trying to work with my local arthouse theater to bring it to town. While they are on board theoretically, showing an abortion documentary also opens them up for criticism and potential protesting from the antis. So, like anything with abortion access, we have to work extra hard to secure our resources (here: the film and a venue), while also being expected to respect the right of folks to protest. When protests happen, the news channels come out; when cameras are pointed at a theater entrance, certain people feel uncomfortable attending. Then the antis get to point and say, “see, no one cares about an abortion documentary!” Or, even worse, “Look at us! We prevented people from seeing this with our numbers and power!”

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      Mayotonillabonsaihulahula
      2/22/16 9:56am

      Yes. I think the “liberal media” is surprisingly unwilling to call the conservative’s BS most of the time.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    I'm Fart and I'm SmunnyAnna Merlan
    2/22/16 10:01am

    Okay, now we are throwing shade at men standing up for abortion rights? Not like they should be called the saviors of our uteruses, but really? The whole show started with him doing a piece on why nominating a Supreme Court Justice is Obama’s job, then goes into a topic for an upcoming SCOTUS case. But also, he does his best to speak to an audience that isn’t super pro-choice, which is something many people fail to do. There are actually some conservatives I know that enjoy the show even though “he can be liberal at times.” I’m glad he did this topic now that he has a larger fan base being on his 3rd season.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Ghiradelli's Dark Chocolate with Roasted Almonds and Sea SaltAnna Merlan
      2/22/16 9:50am

      What I really want is for someone to pay attention to the absolutely horrible laws that are trending in the US right now regarding referrals to abortion. Americans United for Life has a template for a bill that is ostensibly cutting off funding for PP, but the language includes cutting off state and federal funding for any place that provides abortion referrals (with exceptions for Medicaid and Title X). It became law in Arkansas last year and South Carolina and Kentucky currently have similar bills being considered (though KY did get it down to just applying to Title X). From what I’ve seen, places that would normally do these referrals don’t even know the law exists, because reporters are only talking to PP people (and even places like CRR are calling them anti-PP).

      Reply
      <
      • Read More
        MayotonillaGhiradelli's Dark Chocolate with Roasted Almonds and Sea Salt
        2/22/16 10:29am

        Is that legal? I'm not an expert but Medicaid clients are supposed to have freedom of choice in their providers, no?

        Reply
        <
      • Read More
        Ghiradelli's Dark Chocolate with Roasted Almonds and Sea SaltMayotonilla
        2/22/16 10:40am

        These laws specifically apply to grants like Title X (in the case of PP). But when you include places that do referrals as abortion providers (literally redefining the term), that’s DV shelters, rape crisis centers, HIV organizations, etc. Federal grants are distributed through the states, so these laws aim to make places choose between making the referrals and being eligible for state and federal grants.

        Reply
        <