"There's a sense that Denmark doesn't respect Greenland and that there's this long legacy of racism, exploitation, treating Greenlanders as second class citizens."

"And Greenlanders come from a different culture. They're part of this wider Inuit community that lives in the Arctic Circle in Alaska and Canada and parts of Russia. They have their own language, their own traditions, their own history of how they survive in this very hostile environment. And I met a number of people who said that they were mistreated, they were made fun of, that they were called racial slurs. I also heard a lot about the colonial legacy and things that Denmark had done when Greenland was a colony. They destroyed local traditions. They outlawed some of the religious practices that Greenlanders had been doing for centuries. And there was this scandal in the 1960s and 70s where Danish doctors were inserting IUD birth control devices into Greenlandic girls as young as, like, 12 in an attempt to keep the population down. And they did this to thousands of girls without them really understanding what was being done to them. And this was kept secret until just a few years ago. And when this scandal broke and the news spread that all these women in Greenland had been subject to this, it caused a lot of anger towards Denmark, all these things together. That's what brings us to this moment where just about everybody now wants independence."

From "Trump’s Bid for Greenland," yesterday's episode of the NYT "Daily" podcast. Audio and transcript here, at Podscribe.

And here's today's news from Greenland, as reported in the NYT: "In Trump’s Shadow, Greenland Votes for a New Government/President Trump has expressed a desire to 'get' Greenland, but the party that won Tuesday’s election is in no rush to change the status quo":

"More than 20 States in our country have a Trump abortion ban, many with no exceptions even for rape and incest, and if he wins we all know he will sign a national abortion ban to outlaw abortion in every state."

Said Kamala Harris, at her Eau Claire rally yesterday, clipped below.

I was listening live, and this argument really struck me at the time. But, on reflection, I thought it was an inaccurate representation of what Trump has been saying. I think he's been saying that he wants to leave abortion regulation to the states and keep the federal government out of it.

But why should we trust him? Nevertheless, I do think it's wrong to say "we all know he will sign a national abortion ban." It's justified to scare us with the possibility, but "we all know he will sign a national abortion ban"? No, I don't know it.

"The trial found that after 15 weeks of applying a teaspoon amount of the gel on their shoulder blades once a day, 86% of trial participants had sperm counts low enough to prevent pregnancy...."

"Why has it taken so long to get this far? Partly because male birth control is tricky from a biological point of view. Women produce one egg a month. Men, meanwhile, are constantly producing sperm at the rate of millions a day. There have been various attempts to make a male birth control option, but they’ve all hit roadblocks. In 2016, for example, a stage II trial of a hormonal birth control injection for men was halted because of the side-effects – which included acne, mood swings and depression. One man tried to commit suicide, which is what led to the study being cut short...."

From "A male birth control gel is one step closer to reality, and that’s worth celebrating" (The Guardian).

ADDED: It bothers me to think of this stuff spread on men's shoulder blades. Is there to be no more hugging?

"This is a clarifying political vote that will put every Republican on record as to whether or not they believe in a constitutional right to contraception...."

"They can try to rationalize a vote, but that will not be how it is interpreted by women who want a right to contraception. If the bill doesn’t pass into law, it will be because Republicans oppose protecting American’s right to contraception."

Said Senator Edward J. Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts, quoted in "Schumer Plans Vote on Contraception Access, Teeing Up a Campaign Issue/Democrats are planning to spotlight Republicans’ opposition to legislation protecting birth control access nationwide, as part of an election-year push" (NYT).

Trump responded to a question about this bill: "We’re looking at that. Things really do have a lot to do with the states, and some states are going to have different policies than others." So: leave it to the states. The benefits of federalism. But that's a little hard to understand, and Democrats are pushing Republicans to speak in these mystifying terms that cause anxiety about what's really going on.

After Trump got a chance to see the reaction in the media, he stepped away from the federalism talk and said that he would "never advocate imposing restrictions on birth control" or a "ban on birth control."

"Search for birth control on TikTok or Instagram and a cascade of misleading videos vilifying hormonal contraception appear..."

"... Young women blaming their weight gain on the pill. Right-wing commentators claiming that some birth control can lead to infertility. Testimonials complaining of depression and anxiety. Instead, many social media influencers recommend 'natural' alternatives, such as timing sex to menstrual cycles.... While doctors say hormonal contraception — which includes birth-control pills and intrauterine devices (IUDs) — is safe and effective, they worry the profession’s long-standing lack of transparency about some of the serious but rare side effects has left many patients seeking information from unqualified online communities. The backlash to birth control comes at a time of rampant misinformation about basic health tenets amid poor digital literacy and a wider political debate over reproductive rights, in which far-right conservatives argue that broad acceptance of birth control has altered traditional gender roles and weakened the family...."

From "Women are getting off birth control amid misinformation explosion" (WaPo).

"... especially useful for young women, teenagers and those who have difficulty dealing with the time, costs or logistical hurdles involved in visiting a doctor to obtain a prescription."

From "F.D.A. Approves First U.S. Over-the-Counter Birth Control Pill/The move could significantly expand access to contraception. The pill is expected to be available in early 2024" (NYT).

From the comments over there: "It should have been made available 50 years ago and should be as cheap as a bottle of generic aspirin. Let's get on with it and make it affordable."

"The elk problem is really interesting. I do feel that there has to be population control both on the part of humans and animals."

"Now, the available methods of contraception for animals are not always good.... But humans and animals have to limit our own population growth in order for the world to be minimally just. With the elk, there are things that have been tried: shooting them in cold blood; some kind of population control;  introducing wolves to tear the elks limb from limb. People say that’s better because it’s nature. I don’t like that argument. For the elk, a bullet to the brain — if the person knew how to shoot, which a lot of hunters don’t — would be a lot better than the wolf’s tearing them apart...."

Said Martha Nussbaum, quoted in "Do Humans Owe Animals Equal Rights? Martha Nussbaum Thinks So" (NYT).

"I was so angry and just irritated at seeing man after man — you know, typically, male politicians — grandstanding about abortion."

Said Gabrielle Blair, quoted in "Gabrielle Blair Would Like a Word With Men/After 16 years of making a name for herself as a blogger and home decor expert, Design Mom has written her manifesto — about reproductive health" by Kase Wickman (NYT).

The NYT article seems to be a reaction to the fact that a book Blair created out of a 64-post-long Twitter thread has debuted at No. 2 on The New York Times’s paperback nonfiction best-seller list.

Here's the Twitter thread, and here's the book: “Ejaculate Responsibly: A Whole New Way to Think About Abortion.” 

Now, my readers may be saying tough luck for Althouse. She could have written a book called "Don't Be a Splooge Stooge," but Blair got to the best-seller list first. Of all my unwritten books, that's the one I'm least sad about not devoting a year of my life to.

"Some people in the US are rushing to get sterilized after the Roe v. Wade ruling."

That's the headline at CNN.

The evidence: "several gynecologists tell CNN they've seen an increase in people requesting tubal ligation." So... several gynecologists. Noted.

But there's an anecdote about a woman who's finding it difficult to get the surgery:

"One day I hope to become a mother. But for now I have sex just because I like it. Sex is fun. For the puritanical tyrants seeking to control our bodies..."

"... that’s a problem. This radical minority, including the right-wing faction on the Supreme Court, probably won’t stop at banning abortion. If we take Justice Clarence Thomas at his word — and there’s no reason not to — the right to contraception could be the next to fall. Why? Because many in this movement are animated by an insatiable desire to punish women who have sex on our own terms and enjoy it.... They are part of a movement intended to curb the hard-won freedom to pursue careers and joys outside the confines of wifehood and motherhood.... In the America where I came of age, I was told my life was worth more than my ability to have babies. And my sexuality was nothing to be ashamed of.... Later, when I was a student at the University of Michigan, the movement for sex positivity was thrilling and liberating. We learned that pleasurable sexual experiences between consenting adults of all genders and orientations were to be celebrated.... " 

Writes Mara Gay, in "The Republican War on Sex" (NYT).

"Patients were typically confused when presented with a clinic that looked mostly like a house and a little like a church."

"They described to me how anti-choice protesters would prolong and exploit this confusion to keep patients away from medical care for as long as possible, employing medical misinformation or simple guilt. When a car did make it into the clinic parking lot, the protesters could not physically approach whomever got out of it without trespassing, so they just yelled at them. They had an elevated platform for this purpose, built right up against the clinic’s property line...."  

Writes John Skiles Skinner, in "I escorted women into an abortion clinic. Protesters were relentless. A decoy operation staged next door to Planned Parenthood in Lincoln, Nebraska, knew all the tricks" (WaPo).

They chose to talk about sex a lot. They tended to be opposed to birth control and were fond of explaining 'God’s plan for human sexuality.' One woman illustrated this plan with unasked-for details about her virtuous married sex life. She felt that abortion and hormonal birth control were murder, and that condoms were undignified. Her husband learned to suppress his sexual urges, she said, and they now had sex only for procreation.... 

"If we can’t safely go out and have sex and know that we will have a choice after that, then why should we be expected to?"

Such a crazy question, asked by Caroline Healey, "a 22-year-old event coordinator," quoted in "Sex Strike! Abstinence trends on Twitter in wake of Roe v. Wade ruling" (NY Post).

It's not just on Twitter. The Post encountered Healy at a protest. She also said:

“I think it’s absolutely valid for us to be withholding the Holy Grail that men seem to think is important... Why shouldn’t we withhold it if we’re always worried that they’re not going put a condom on, that they’re going take one off after we ask them to...."

"It’s the main reason why I worked so hard to keep Robert Bork off the Court. It reflects his view almost — almost word — anyway."

"Look, the idea that — it concerns me a great deal that we’re going to, after 50 years, decide a woman does not have a right to choose within the limits of the Supreme Court decision in Casey.... But even more equally as profound is the rationale used. And it would mean that every other decision relating to the notion of privacy is thrown into question. I realize this goes back a long way, but one of the debates I had with Robert Bork was whether — whether Griswold vs. Connecticut should stand as law. The state of Connecticut said that the privacy of your bedroom — you — a husband and wife or a couple could not choose to use contraception; the use of contraception was a violation of the law. If the rationale of the decision as released were to be sustained, a whole range of rights are in question.... who you marry, whether or not you decide to conceive a child or not, whether or not you can have an abortion, a range of other decisions — whether or not — how you raise your child — What does this do — and does this mean that in Florida they can decide they’re going to pass a law saying that same-sex marriage is not permissible, that it’s against the law in Florida?"

 Said President Joe Biden yesterday.

"Where was men’s outrage while women were poisoning themselves with pills and scarring their reproductive organs with IUDs and abortions?"

"Answer: They were bystanders. Most men, other than dedicated pro-lifers, weren’t about to protest. If women were willing to terminate their pregnancies, male culture was, like, Okay, honey, whatever you want. It’s your decision. So, forgive me if the sudden rush on vasectomy clinics fails to bestir my gratitude. Too much water under my bridge, I guess, but I wonder: Are men really acting out of concern for women who might suffer without Roe v. Wade? Or is it because, as documentary filmmaker Jonathan Stack ('The Vasectomist') let slip, 'The quality of life for millions of men will be adversely affected if this (abortion) right is taken from women'?... So, step right up, you Men-Who-Love-Your-Wives: Have a vasectomy if you like.... But it does seem to me that nature’s life force is flickering a bit these days. When manning up means terminating one’s ability to reproduce — and woman’s power resides in the destruction of her unborn — you have to wonder, wherefore art we?"

Writes Kathleen Parker, in "Men want to have vasectomies now? What took them so long?" (WaPo). She's reacting to that article from a few days ago: "Men across America are getting vasectomies ‘as an act of love’/With the right to abortion under threat, men say they want to play a role in reproductive planning to support their partners" (WaPo). You may have noticed that, and you may even have noticed my failure to blog it. My reaction to the "act of love" framing was more cynical than I was in the mood to type out. So I was glad to see Parker do the work.

"We want to have sex, not children.... Having a child or not is our choice to make and our fundamental right. We don’t need anyone to tell us how to live."

Said Zhou Muyun, a 23-year-old copywriter in Guangzhou, who was turned down by 2 different hospitals when he tried to get a vasectomy, quoted in "In need of a baby boom, China clamps down on vasectomies" (WaPo). 

Eventually, he found a doctor who would do the vasectomy, but "Even on the operating table, the doctor tried to discourage him from going ahead." We're told that Zhou and his girlfriend Han Feifei, who live together, "wanted to maintain a 'DINK' — double income, no kids — lifestyle."

Another man "Jiang, 30, who works in customer service at an Internet company, visited six hospitals in his home province of Fujian before finding one more than 1,200 miles away in Chengdu in Sichuan province that would perform a vasectomy." He said: "I felt like I had finally gotten rid of this huge burden.... Those around me who are married and have kids have nothing that makes me envious."

ADDED: I hadn't seen the term "DINK" in a long time. I have never used it on this blog — which is nearly 18 years old — and it's the kind of thing I tend to blog. I remember it from the 80s. I think that's because the 80s were a time for bragging about how much money you made — actually lording it over others. That went out of style.

"Is the Forced Contraception Alleged by Britney Spears Legal?/The United States has a dark history of court-sanctioned sterilization, but more recent rulings and legislation suggest it would violate a basic right."

A NYT article by Jan Hoffman: 

The scant law on the question in conservatorship indicates what an outlier the Spears case may be. In 1985, the California Supreme Court denied the petition of guardian parents of a 29-year-old woman with Down syndrome who wanted her to undergo a tubal ligation.

Typically, a conservator has temporary control over the finances and even medical care of an incapacitated person... If a guardian fears that a ward will make financially unwise choices, “the remedy is not to say they can’t procreate,” said Sylvia Law, a health law scholar at New York University School of Law. “It’s unspeakable.”

According to experts in trust and estate law, the handful of cases in which a guardian, usually a parent, has asked a court to order contraception involved severely disabled children. “Such a child would lack the capacity to understand that a penis and vagina could make a baby,” said Bridget J. Crawford, an expert on guardianship law at Pace University law school. “And that certainly is not the Britney Spears case.”

Britney Spears is 39-years-old, so the conservator's decision that she cannot remove the IUD is very close to a determination that she can never have another child. She does have 2 sons, and the breakdown that led to the conservatorship happened right after she lost custody of them. I'm seeing that she was led to believe at the time that the conservatorship would help her regain custody. They are teenagers now, 15 and 14, so the time for living closely with them is also ending:

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Britney Spears (@britneyspears)

"[Margaret] Sanger still has defenders who say the decision to repudiate her lacks historical nuance."

"Ellen Chesler, a senior fellow at the Roosevelt Institute, a think tank, and the author of a biography of Ms. Sanger and the birth control movement, said that while the country is undergoing vast social change and reconsidering prominent figures from the past, Ms. Sanger’s views have been misinterpreted. The eugenics movement had wide support at the time in both conservative and liberal circles, Ms. Chesler said, and Ms. Sanger was squarely in the latter camp. She rejected some eugenicists’ belief that white middle-class families should have more children than others, Ms. Chesler said. Instead, Ms. Sanger believed that the quality of all children’s lives could be improved if their parents had smaller families, Ms. Chesler said, adding that Ms. Sanger believed Black people and immigrants had a right to that better life. 'Her motives were the opposite of racism,' Ms. Chesler said, citing Ms. Sanger’s relationships with prominent Black leaders like W.E.B. Du Bois, a founder of the N.A.A.C.P....  As the story goes, Ms. Sanger treated a woman named 'Sadie Sachs,' who had given herself an abortion. Sadie asked a doctor how she could avoid having another baby, and the doctor recommended abstinence. A few months later, Ms. Sanger was called to treat Sadie again after she had given herself another abortion, and she died in Ms. Sanger’s arms. Ms. Sanger went on to start clinics, including one in Harlem. She pushed for reproductive rights, even after she was arrested and sent to jail for opening her first clinic, in the Brownsville section of Brooklyn."

From "Planned Parenthood in N.Y. Disavows Margaret Sanger Over Eugenics/Ms. Sanger, a feminist icon and reproductive-rights pioneer, supported a discredited belief in improving the human race through selective breeding" (NYT).

"The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday teachers at religious schools are foreclosed from bringing workplace discrimination cases against their employers."

"The 7-2 ruling said the lawsuits could not move forward due to the “ministerial exception” and court precedent, which has held the First Amendment protects religious institutions from some workplace discrimination complaints."

The Washington Times reports.

AND: A second case announced this morning — "In Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania, the justices upheld a federal rule exempting employers with religious or moral objections from providing contraceptive coverage to their employees under the Affordable Care Act." I'm seeing that announcement at SCOTUSblog. Thomas writes the majority opinion and there's also a concurring opinion by Kagan, who is joined by Breyer. Only Ginsburg and Sotomayor dissent. Full opinion here.

Excerpt from the majority opinion:

"At the same moment she put her birth control on full display — and as other users posted comments such as 'yeetus the fetus,' meaning to get an abortion..."

"... the abortion debate was raging across the country. 'I was thinking while I was making it, "Do I want to post this?" Because it is a controversial thing,' she says. 'But I think that birth control is being normalized with teenagers, so I didn’t think it would be a big deal.... I think it’s definitely cool that one girl can do something, and then all these other girls see it, and it’s normalized...'... The story of this particular viral video... showcases young women in all their random, irreverent, teenage glory... It’s no wonder TikTok is wildly popular amongst Gen-Z’ers, given their inclination toward humor...Videos such as Bass’s show that they’re creative; they’re politically aware; they’ve got a sense of humor: "When I watched the video, I thought, "Gosh, this just totally encapsulates what Generation Z is."'"

From "TikTok is a wildly popular app among teenage girls. Here’s how one 15-year-old’s birth control video went viral/Ava Bass wasn’t expecting the video of her pill case to garner more than 2 million views — but its success encapsulates much about Generation Z" (at WaPo's The Lily).

Here's the video, showing the creation of an image of a woman throwing a swaddled infant away.


The image decorates a birth-control-pill package, so it represents the rejecting of the idea of having a baby, not the abuse of a living child. But it did cause commenters to write "yeetus the fetus," which is a crude (and new to me) expression of enthusiasm for abortion.

"The Washington Post spoke to seven scholars of the eugenics movement; all of them said that Thomas’s use of this history was deeply flawed."

Does anyone read something like that and simply trust the "scholars" to give the true account of the eugenics movement and what today resembles it? I say no, because I'm not including the trust that skips a step and believes the the scholars because they want to preserve abortion rights and they need Clarence Thomas to be wrong. My question is whether scholars these days are trusted as a source of truth about a hot social issue.

WaPo has 7 scholars, and they deliver the conclusion — "a gross misuse of historical facts,"  "amateur historical mistake," "really bad history," "historically incoherent," "ignorant and prejudiced," "just not historical." That's the bottom line if that's all you need, but I need the article to quote Thomas, accurately and in context, and to have the historians specify what is bad, otherwise I don't know whether they are doing the same thing they say he's doing, using what they can find and making interpretations that serve their policy preferences. The fact that they're "scholars" doesn't work anymore (if it ever did).

“Eugenicists were initially hostile to birth control because they knew that the women who would use it were the type of women they would want to encourage to reproduce, so-called ‘better’ women — upper-middle-class women,” said Kevles, the Yale professor. “When they finally came around to it, they did it in the face of a practical reality — they caught up to what their constituency was doing.... I’ve been studying this stuff for 40 years, and I’ve never been able to find a leader of the eugenics movement that came out and said they supported abortion,” Lombardo said. 

Thomas cited high rate of abortion for fetuses diagnosed with Down syndrome in developed countries (98 percent in Denmark, 90 percent in the United Kingdom, 77 percent in France and 67 percent in the United States, according to the statistics he cites), the practice of sex-based abortions in Asia (to eliminate female fetuses), and statistics that show higher rates of abortion among blacks than whites, to make his argument that abortion is akin to eugenics.

But many of the historians were quick to point out that abortion — a personal choice by an individual — differed significantly from the state-mandated programs foisted involuntarily on others by eugenicists.

That's not a disagreement about history, their area of expertise. That's an argument about how far to go in using history. I agree with the historians about the distinction — and said so when the case came out, here — but I didn't use historical analysis to arrive at that view. The historians are reaching beyond their area of expertise and doing legal analysis. That's fine. They're entitled to participate in the debate about the meaning of legal rights, but the idea that because of their scholarship their opinion trumps Thomas's fails.

WaPo quotes a historian whose book was cited by Thomas — "It was absolutely decontextualized" — and a reaction from Ed Whelan at the National Review — "just another in the sorry genre of 'you properly cited my work in the course of an argument I don’t agree with.'"