Sensuality Reads

Madonna Calls Out Gay Men’s Misogyny In Out Interview

Long Ring Finger Traits Similar Between Men & Women In Business

Jennifer Lawrence Calls Photo Hack A Sex Crime | $100 Million Lawsuit Threat Finally Prompts Google Action

Anais Mali Pays Tribute To Warrior Women in ‘Amazon’ By Urivaldo Lopes For French Revue de Modes #25

jd Forte’s ‘The Up and Comers’ & A September 11 Women’s Rights Reflection

Lea Seydoux Seduces In Lui Magazine Relaunch, Lensed By Mario Sorrenti

Anne Rethinks ‘Flawless’, Third-Tier Male Photographers & Values That Matter


Victoria’s Secret Angels have Appeared Often In GQ & Esquire

Marilyn Monroe Photographer Bert Stern Looks To Kate Upton As Next Muse

The ‘50 Shades of Grey’ BDSM Devil Seduces in the Eternal Submission Collection
Red Genitals Not Arousing In Recent Study, But Men Do Tip Red Shirt Waitresses Better

Sexual Politics & Fashion, 50 Shades of Grey Meets YVVY’s Nude Edition

Islam, Western Guilt, Original Sin & Sensuality | Koray Birand’s Alyssa Miller Images Celebrate Female Eroticism

Loving Relationships | 32 Health Benefits of Sex

American Culture Promotes Female Sexual Dysfunction

For Sister Margaret Farley Responsible Pleasure Is Not a Sin

Strong American Results in Female Sexual Desire Drug

Self Love Is Saying ‘No’ to Fashion Body Images You Hate

Saint Shakira Calls Libido the “Engine of the World”

Male Ego, Women Faking Orgasms & Sensual Chaos in Our Bedrooms

‘Pretty Boy’ Andrej Pejic Talks Sex, Love & Leaving His Gender to ‘Artistic Interpretation’

Find Your Sensual, Sovereign Self with Lone Morch in Paris


Tara, Candice & Robyn | Steven Meisel | Vogue Italia June 2011 | ‘Belle vere’

Franca Sozzani on Curvy Girls, Sensuality & More Body Types in Fashion

Givenchy Transgender Model Lea T Stars in French Vogue (2010)

Tom Ford Embraces Natural Breasts, Not Bombshells

Orgasmic Female Brain in ‘La Petite Mort’

Ever Woman Should Own Jordan Matters’ ‘Uncovered’

Men More Likely Than Women To First Look at Face in Porn Films

Selita Ebanks | Kanye West ‘Runaway’ Full Video Embedded

The Great Wall of Vagina | Learning to Love Our Genitalia

Body Talk | Owning Vulvas, Clits & G-Spots

Mysteries of the Garden of Eden’ | History Channel | In Latin Apple Means Evil

Sexy Doublespeak | American Women & Sexual Honesty

Statistics Say Conservatives Buy More Porn


Women As Muses: What Is Our Place in the Modern World? Or Are We Just ‘Slut Girls’ Today?



Anne of Carversville & Sensuality News do not accept submissions.

« Life Before Liberty | Patriarch John Boehner Moves Against American Women | Main | 'Lips Or the Edge of Reason' by Sølve Sundsbø for Exhibition Magazine #1 Lipstick Issue »

Five Republican Men Who Gave American Women The Right to Choose Motherhood

Fashion photos: Ribbons Undone | Morgane Dubled by Sylvie Malfray via FGR.

Five years ago David Brooks wrote about abortion for the New York Times. Without a doubt, his column has become a key argument for overturning Roe vs Wade, returning women’s reproductive rights back to the states and men, whether they are bishops or legislators. The column is widely quoted on the Internet.

Justice Harry Blackmun did more inadvertent damage to U.S. democracy than any other 20th-century American. When he and his Supreme Court colleagues issued the Roe vs. Wade decision, they set off a cycle of political viciousness and counter-viciousness that has poisoned public life ever since, and now threatens to destroy the Senate as we know it.

When Blackmun wrote the Roe decision, it took the abortion issue out of the legislatures and put it into the courts. If it had remained in the legislatures, we would have seen a series of state-by-state compromises reflecting the views of the centrist majority that’s always existed on this issue. These legislative compromises wouldn’t have pleased everyone, but would have been regarded as legitimate.

Instead, Blackmun and his concurring colleagues invented a right to abortion, and imposed a solution more extreme than the policies of just about any other comparable nation.

Anne: I totally reject this last statement. In compiling the list of nations in which abortion was legal at the time of Roe vs Wade, I note that the Indian Parliament under the Prime Ministership of a lady Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, passes Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act 1971 (more commonly referred to as simply MTP Act 1971).

Once again, India was ahead of the United States in expanding womens rights. Shortly, India will guarantee 1/3 of their national government seats to women at a time when America is sliding backwards — compared to other nations —  in its numbers of female legislators.

In matters of legislative governance, America is close to being a patriarchy. We rank 61 globally in having gender equity in political representation.

David Brooks doesn’t inform readers that abortion was legal and practiced in the United States at the time the Constitution was written.

American law regarding abortion was governed by English common law, saying that abortion was legal until the moment of quickening. Ads for abortions were openly advertised in America when the Constitution was written but the practice was not discussed because of strict laws against unmarried sexual activity.

Because hospitals and modern medical advances didn’t exist, most abortions were carried out by midwives. We will continue with a discussion of the medical history of abortion and the medicalization of maternity in another post coming shortly. We will also discuss the impact of immigration on women’s reproductive rights.

In rejecting Republican Supreme Court Justices Harry Blackmun, William J. Brennen, Potter Stewart, Lewis Powell and Chief Justice Republican Warren Burgers conclusion that a woman has the right to choose motherhood until the quickening, Brooks implicitly rejects her right to contraception, which was also governed by state laws, until the Supreme Court overruled them as unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in Griswold v Connecticut that the state had no right to make laws — in this case making contraception illegal — because it invaded the “right to marital privacy”. 

 In writing Griswold v. Connecticut, the court said:

We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights — older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.

The court likened the invasion of marital privacy by the states wanting to regulate contraception to breaking through the doors of one’s home.

The Griswold court didn’t mention any rights of single women to purchase contraceptives. In Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972), single people won the right to purchase and use contraceptives. Justice William J. Brennan, a concurring justice in Griswold, delivered the majority opinion:

If under Griswold the distribution of contraceptives to married persons cannot be prohibited, a ban on distribution to unmarried persons would be equally impermissible. It is true that in Griswold the right of privacy in question inhered in the marital relationship. Yet the marital couple is not an independent entity with a mind and heart of its own, but an association of two individuals each with a separate intellectual and emotional makeup. If the right of privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child.

David Brooks is correct when he says that the Constitution doesn’t guarantee a woman the right to an abortion, even though abortion was practiced when the Constitution was written. None of us have a specific right to privacy either,  outlined in the Constitution, although we frequently speak of our right to privacy.

Privacy rights were included in the Bill of Rights which said, for example, that citizens retain a right to the privacy of beliefs (1st Amendment) or privacy against using our homes to house soldiers (3rd Amendment).

Having established that women had rights as individuals, and not only as spouses, not to have the government reaching into their bedrooms, the Supreme Court defended women’s right to choose motherhood as a right belonging to her, not to her husband, to her church or to the government of the state in which she was living at the time of her pregnancy. Brooks rejects that women have any such rights to privacy.

Building on these two cases, the Supreme Court prepared to rule in Roe vs Wade. In rejecting the legal arguments of Roe vs Wade, Brooks by definition rejects the same rights to contraception and other rights as well.

Luckily women’s right to vote in America, which took 70 years to pass, is granted by the 19th amendment to the US Constitution. To the best of my knowledge, it would be difficult to return this right to the states, and it is safe for women.

The majority opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court in Roe stated that a federally enforceable right to privacy, “whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment’s reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.”

Writing for the seven-member majority, Justice Harry Blackmun argued that the state’s legitimate concern for the protection of prenatal life increased as a pregnancy advanced. While allowing that the state might forbid abortions during a pregnancy’s third trimester, he held that a woman was entitled to obtain an abortion freely, after medical consultation, during the first trimester and in an authorized clinic during the second trimester.

Even I was surprised to learn that it was five Republican men and two Democrats who determined that an American woman does have privacy rights that include her decision to choose motherhood and her independence of men in making the decision.

The men justices were primarily Eisenhower and Nixon appointees — hardly liberals. Not ruling for women’s rights in Roe vs Wade not only threatened to roll back contraceptive laws, but it opened the door to challenges against a host of other right to privacy laws that smart women would have brought back before the court, in a demand for consistency and equal treatment before the court.

David Brooks says that women are not guaranteed reproductive freedom in the American constitution.  I repeat that abortion was legal and women had few rights anyway. As John Adams, America’s second president,  wrote to his wife Abigail:

We know better than to repeal our Masculine systems. Altho they are in Full force, you know they are little more than Theory. We dare not exert our Power in its full Latitude. We are obliged to go fair, and softly, and in Practice you know We are the subjects. We have only the Name of Masters, and rather than give up this, which would completely subject Us to the Despotism of the petticoat, I hope General Washington, and all our brave Heroes would fight….

This is the familiar ‘trust me’ argument that David Brooks returns women to, with his states rights message.

There is absolutely no proscription against abortion in the Bible either. Abortion was permitted in Rome at the time of Christ and the word does not appear in the Bible. Rather, the subordination of women to the laws of religion was men’s interpretation of what God meant to say but didn’t.

No woman is under any pressure to get an abortion in America. The question is whether her most fundamental ones are determined by men, or any set of inalienable rights that belong to her, rather than being dished out to her at the whims of politics and the patriarchy, or the”Masculine systems” as John Adams described the power of men over women, at the founding of America.

Seriously, David. Women didn’t have the right to vote when the country was founded. Why would you think the Constitution would include a right to choose motherhood or not? Anne

Life Before Liberty | Patriarch John Boehner Moves Against American Women

David Brooks Is One Man Who Wants to Put American Women Back in the Kitchen

Reader Comments (2)

Has your life been of value? Would it bother you if it had never been lived? Had you been aborted, it would have never happened. You wouldn't have been aware of that, most likely, but does that still mean that, given what you now know, whether or not you had had your life cut short would have made no difference. Aren't you glad that you've been able to live your life? Shouldn't that opportunity be given to those in the womb now?

January 7, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterPaul

I'm glad you asked that question, Paul. I was a very unwanted child and a seriously abused child, both emotionally and psychologically. My mother told me just about every day of her life that I had ruined hers by being born. The day she passed her civil service exam she found out she was pregnant with me. She despised being a stay-at-home mother and all I prayed for was that she would go to work, get a job, and let me run the house which I was capable of doing at 12, as well as being a straight A student.

There was a moment in my life at about 15 that I finally talked back to my mother, screaming at her "Why didn't you have an abortion, so that I could have been born to a family that wanted me." I believed then and I believe now that my soul and spirit would have come to another family, if my mother had aborted me. As young as five -- and a devout Catholic child -- I believed that my soul wasn't tied to my body and my being born into this particular family. I believed that my identity -- which Rick Santorum and friends don't even believe is important -- was part of the great cosmos of spirituality. I believe that my separation of spirit from home and parents is how I survived my childhood. Most kids don't have that level of intellectual reflection, but for me the sense that I was far more than the DNA of my particular parents gave me strength.

I am a much stronger woman because of my abuse, but that is not the track record for most people who are abused. They wither and become abusers themselves, perpetuating a vicious cycle that is actually condoned by many social conservatives who believe in intense corporeal punishment of children. So without equivocation, yes, I wish my mother had aborted me because I have no doubt that I would have been born into a situation where the suffering would have turned to joy in a family that wanted me, even if we were really poor. I prayed for a working mother who was happy with her life and experienced pride in her achievements.

This is a woman's issue, not a man's. Men are clueless as to what these realities mean for women and their children. If you think a woman who finds herself pregnant and has a child against her will will love that child and nurture it -- forgive me for saying this -- but you are empty-headed about the real dynamics of nurturing. It's understandable since most men aren't in charge of nurturing. Thank you for asking that question so directly of me, because it gives me a chance to answer, and I realize that I must become more public in my direct experience with reflecting many times on your question. It's not an abstract concept to me at all, but one I have considered carefully in forming my pro-choice views.

Note, that I was also stalked for a year and in police protective custody because a man was determined to kill me after Roe vs Wade, simply because he heard me say on TV that I supported the decision. His pursuit of me was so vicious and threatening that I left a career in journalism and went into business, after he flew across my windshield one night in a dark parking lot.

This entire situation for women is a travesty of injustice and platitudes by men, demanding again the full control of women's bodies that they have enjoyed for years. Hence, I will fight on for women and for children to be born into families that want them and have chosen to be parents with joy in their hearts.

Vast numbers of women feel as my mother did -- and she was married for two years. I can't imagine how her hatred of not being ready to be a mother would have been worse, had I been conceived on a date between her and my father, who did NOTHING to stop years of visible bruising and broken bones. He was an entrepreneurial pillar of our community. But when it came to my abuse -- even the night I visibly had a black eye and broken nose when he walked in the door -- he said: "God damn it Linda (my first name) and Jannie Mae -- why can't you two get along."

I found out from other family members about a decade ago that my grandmother called a family council when I was a baby, saying "Jan is going to kill that girl." It was agreed that my father would step in and do something, which he did not. He let the suffering go on and told me when I was 18 that he had to make a choice between having a relationship with me or my mother. He chose her and the rest is history.

Mine is the REAL story of what goes on in homes of unwanted children, rather than the happy family platitudes of Phyllis Schlafly. As Santorum says, we don't exist as selves to flourish and grow. We exist as selves to make other families. It's our duty. How much we suffer being born to women who don't want us and are incapable of nurturing is irrelevant, because we're nothing more than future babymakers. Enlightened Republican men of the 80s understood that and determined that women, too -- not only men -- had rights under the US Constitution.

Today those men are like my father . . . not willing to fight for the right of unwanted souls to be born into families that want them, which would have happened if my mother aborted me. Note, that I might have landed in Afghanistan or India, into a much worse situation where there was no way out. I don't wear rose-colored glasses on this subject, assuming that I would have been born with Hillary Clinton as my wonderful mother. But to have been dirt poor and loved would still be my preference, and yes, I do wish my mother had aborted me.

Followup: reading more about my own sense of soul, I see that Socrates and Plato had a similar view of the soul as moving from one body to another. It was Aristotle who began to redefine the concept, concurrently with the development of monotheism. And we know, of course, that Aristotle's view of women was infinitely worse than either that of Socrates or Plato. Aristotle not only viewed women as inferior beings but almost as animals. Our essential use was as breeders, and that fact is a matter of historical record and well reported in Aristotle's writings.

January 7, 2012 | Registered CommenterAnne

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>