The Guttmacher Institute recently reported a rise in the abortion rate. It's the second recent increase, following one in 2019:
In addition, the absolute number of abortions increased; the abortion/pregnancy ratio increased; and this happened in every region of the country.
Why? It's all guesswork at this point, but there are a few theories:
It's just a bit of noise.
Decreasing lead levels reduced impulsive teen behavior, causing the abortion rate to go down over the long term. However, this doesn't entirely fit the data. Teen birth rates went down starting in the early '90s, which fits the lead theory. But the abortion rate started to decline in the early '80s. In any case, it hardly matters since we're now at a point where lead is a non-factor. It has no influence over small ups and downs in recent years.
Conservatives have made contraceptives harder to get, which leads to more unwanted pregnancies and more abortions. Maybe, but there's little evidence for either (a) reduced access to contraceptives (the data is hard to get and always out of date) or (b) the belief that reduced access to contraceptives leads to more abortions in the first place. In fact, there's some evidence that more difficult access to contraceptives leads to less sex and therefore fewer abortions.
Mifepristone/misoprostol (the "abortion pills") has become more widely available, which makes it easier and more convenient to get an abortion. .
The data for 2020 should be ignored, just like all other pandemic-era data. We still have no handle on what really happened with people during the pandemic.
Basically, this is just a mystery. For now, I'd keep an open mind and wait another few years for more data.
DATA NOTE: The Guttmacher data from 1973-2017 is here. The data from 2017-2020 is linked here. CDC data for teen birth rates is here.
UPDATE: In the fourth bullet I initially referred to Plan B, which is a contraceptive known as the "morning after pill." I meant to refer to mifepristone/misoprostol, which is an abortifacient that has become much more widely used over the past decade. I've corrected the text and added a chart.
Liberals were anticipating this ruling with trepidation. The issue in question was related to the way Medicare reimburses hospitals for certain prescription drugs, and by itself it's not hugely important. But the bigger issue was how much deference courts should give the government when it enacts a specific policy in the face of vague statutory language.
Here's the thing: the Supreme Court ruled—unanimously!—against the government, which is exactly the outcome liberals feared. Without substantial good-faith scope to interpret enormously complex modern laws, the gears of government would grind to a halt.
So why are liberals content with losing this case? Because the ruling merely overturns the Medicare reimbursement policy and says nothing about the larger issue of deference to agency decisions.¹ This suggests that the Court—including conservatives as well as liberals—is not entirely on board with gutting the current rules on deference.
So what happens next? A unanimous decision written by a conservative suggests there's some horsetrading that needs to be worked out before a more expansive ruling is made. This in turn suggests that the current rules are likely to be pared back a bit, but the Court's members are still negotiating the exact terms. Or, perhaps, that the Court's conservatives have cold feet about upending the operation of the entire government and are willing to keep the current rules mostly in place but are trying to get something from liberals in return.
That's my guess, anyway. I suspect the current rules might get tweaked a bit, but are basically fairly safe. This is one of those cases (unlike, say, abortion) where the extremist conservative view just doesn't look so good, even to conservatives, when they have to really and truly consider the wild chaos that would result from a bright line ruling. The world looks different when you move from sloganeering to reality.
¹You'll hear the current rules referred to as "Chevron deference" because they were laid out in the 1984 case Chevron v. National Resources Defense Council.
I don't have anything substantive to say here, but WTF Uvalde police department? Are they seriously trying to prohibit access to bodycam video and other evidence related to their recent school shooting because . . . well, Jason Koebler of Vice tells us what they're saying:
The city and its police department want to be exempted from releasing a wide variety of records in part because it is being sued, in part because some of the records could include “highly embarrassing information,” in part because some of the information is “not of legitimate concern to the public,” in part because the information could reveal “methods, techniques, and strategies for preventing and predicting crime,” in part because some of the information may cause or may "regard … emotional/mental distress," and in part because its response to the shooting is being investigated by the Texas Rangers, the FBI, and the Uvalde County District Attorney.
Is there any reason that the attorney general of Texas should give this the time of day? "Highly embarrassing information" is about the worst possible reason to withhold public information.¹ "Methods and techniques" is almost deliberately contemptuous considering that nobody in their right mind would ever study and follow the disastrous conduct of the Uvalde police department. And "mental distress"? Really? I think the Uvalde police have already managed to max this out. It's hardly a good reason for withholding information anyway.
I swear I'd think this was a joke if it weren't down in black and white in a letter to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. If he cares about either the law or public opinion even slightly, he'll return this letter instantly with "DENIED" stamped all over it.
¹Actually, this is by far the most common reason for withholding information from the public. But nobody ever says it. I don't know what the Uvalde attorneys were thinking.
Why is it so hard to get healthcare as a trans cancer patient?
Nothing could have prepared me for what I was about to endure as a trans cancer patient. The abusive treatment I have experienced makes clear how having cancer and being trans are stigmatized in our healthcare system.
Rivers, who lives in the Bay Area, was diagnosed with a rare eye cancer at age 26:
Panic at the “C” word barred me from access to transition-related care. Once they learned I had cancer, some providers suggested discontinuing my hormones without offering any medical justification to explain how this would support my health. One provider told me I needed to start taking antidepressants because I was “emotional” and that if I did not, they would stop prescribing my hormone therapy. As a result, I was coerced into taking psychiatric medication I did not want.
....The discomfort and hostility came from not just doctors, but also nurses and other health professionals who participated in my care, such as technicians for my MRI and CT scans. The dehumanizing discrimination I dealt with included having my clothes tugged and being told I was dressing inappropriately for wearing a skirt.
It is really and truly not my goal to minimize Rivers's experience, but once she makes this public it's fair to offer criticism. And I have a problem with it: Rivers never really demonstrates that she suffered "abusive" treatment or anything close to it. Let's run it down:
Within the trans medical community, some doctors suggested she discontinue hormones "without offering any medical justification." Maybe so. But as a cancer patient myself, I'm keenly aware that doctors are sensitive to how little we know about chemotherapy and how it affects different people. Suggesting a conservative approach to the intersection of two big, whole-body therapies—chemo and hormones—isn't uncommon. Sometimes there are things that have to be put on hold until chemo is over.
Another doctor suggested antidepressants. I have no idea if this was justified in Rivers's case. But again, it's a very common suggestion for cancer patients, who unsurprisingly suffer from high rates of depression.
During her cancer treatment, her clothes were tugged. And one time she was told she had dressed inappropriately for wearing a skirt. This doesn't really make sense and as written it sounds almost frivolous. What's the bigger story here?
I wouldn't write about this if I disagreed with some of it but didn't think it caused any harm. But I'm afraid it might. As written, this piece uses sweepingly radical language—abusive, dehumanizing, hostile, stigmatized, structural violence—to describe things that seem pretty ordinary to anyone who's gone through cancer treatment. I've had doctors refuse to prescribe sleeping meds even though they know that corticosteroids (dexamethasone in my case) play hob with sleep. I've had doctors who recommended demanding lifestyle and diet changes that I later learned were entirely unnecessary. I've become weepy and emotional and ended up taking antidepressants. I've had my treatments changed with no warning. I've become blindingly angry over some of the ways I was treated—sometimes justified, other times, in retrospect, an overreaction caused by the fatigue of chemo and poor sleep.
Needless to say, I'm male, white, cis, hetero, middle class, conventionally abled, and pretty much everything else society codes as normal.
In a lot of ways, the medical system sucks. In other ways it's great. Eventually I found a doctor who had sensible ideas about how to treat steroid-induced insomnia. Nurses clued me in on how best to deal with pharmacies. My current oncologist has been completely supportive and helpful about getting me onto the waiting list for CAR-T treatments. I continue to take antidepressants because that turned out to be a good idea.
In other words, Rivers's essay describes a lot of stuff that might not be related to her trans status at all. Without better evidence of abusive treatment and stigmatizing attitudes, this comes across as routine irritation about medical care that's been lightly overhauled in the service of trans activism. Aside from lefties who are eager to believe it regardless, I suspect most people will come away from this essay thinking that trans people are just willing to complain about anything. That doesn't help anyone.
I was cleaning out some old folders over the weekend and came across this picture of a white rose. It had a bit of a yellow cast in the center that I didn't like, but when I opened Photoshop to remove it I accidentally ended up changing it instead. I was quite taken with this pinkish-salmon color, so I went ahead and kept it.
Long story short, this is not a flower found in nature. But I still like it.
Back in the Golden Age of blogging the Texas Republican Party platform was a regular object of ridicule, one that I'd write about every couple of years. It was always a hoot. Take back the Panama Canal! Return to the gold standard! Abolish the federal income tax!
Today the Texas GOP platform is back in the news because they're reminding everyone that Texas retains the right to secede from the Union. They've been doing this for a long time, though, so it's hardly new. Still, just to remind everyone what a bunch of loons these folks are, here's a short, curated list of some of the batfuckery in the 2022 platform:
Support for constitutional amendments to (a) repeal the federal income tax, (b) have legislatures appoint senators, (c) make English the official language of the US.
Also: abolish the estate tax, inventory taxes, carbon taxes, business franchise taxes, taxes on phone and internet services, the Affordable Care Act Home Sales Tax, and state property taxes.
Due to widespread fraud by the Democratic Party, Joe Biden was not legitimately elected president.
Repeal the minimum wage.
Fine corporations that publicly support boycotts in protest of legislative action related to abortion, trans rights, CRT, vaccinations, etc.
Privatize Social Security.
Make machine guns legal.
Abolish the Federal Reserve.
Ban all sex education of any kind. Ditto for all reproductive health services in schools.
Phonics!
Guns for teachers!
There are only two genders, and they are fixed at birth by God. Penalize corporations who object to legislation that protects children from "hormones and puberty blockers designed to fake transition from one gender to another."
Abolish all federal welfare programs.
Homosexuality is an "abnormal lifestyle choice." Transgender identities should not be "validated."
No mask mandates, vaccination mandates, contact tracing, or quarantine.
Allow patients access to any experimental drugs they want.
Physicians who perform elective abortions should be liable to prosecution for murder.
Jurors should be fully informed of their historical right to jury nullification.
Repeal the Johnson Amendment! This is an oldie but a goody. The Johnson Amendment prohibits nonprofits, including churches, from endorsing or opposing political candidates. It was passed unanimously and without comment in 1954.
End gay marriage.
"Rescind unilateral no-fault divorce laws and support covenant marriage."
Hold a referendum next year to see if Texans want to secede from the union.
No gun free zones, regardless of whether private entities want them.
Mail ballots should be available only to people who can't physically show up at a polling place.
Build the wall!
China is bad. Iran is bad. North Korea is bad. Israel is good. Taiwan is good.
We should withdraw from the United Nations. Also, we should remove even a hint of support for Agenda 21 and other leftist UN programs.
There's much more, of course. This is just a taste. And I have to give the Texas GOP credit for moving with the times and finally removing antiquated references to the Panama Canal and the gold standard—though since they want to abolish the Fed, a return to the gold standard might be implied.
Just generally, I would call your attention to the clause allowing doctors to be prosecuted for murder if they perform elective abortions. Like most of the 2022 platform, it's not new. It was also part of the 2020 platform. But it's something that most abortion opponents try to downplay. Not the Texas GOP, though. They're eager to start tossing abortion providers in jail.
The LA Times has a story today about low-income housing—mostly in Northern California—that costs more than $1 million per unit to build. The culprits are the usual ones you'd suspect: state regulations, inflation, supply chain problems, union labor, strict environmental standards, and so forth. I don't doubt that all these things take a toll, but here's a picture the Times ran of one low-income development that's being rehabbed:
Somebody should stop me if I'm wrong, but this looks like some of the most expensive land in the world. It's in the city of San Francisco, right on the waterfront, in between Golden Gate Park and Lake Merced Park. If Zillow can be believed, houses on this strip of land go for nearly $2 million. Go inland two or three blocks and houses are mostly in the low $1 millions.
So why would you build low-income housing here in the first place? Were things different when these units were originally built in the 1970s? This is a matter of genuine curiosity, and I completely understand that housing of any kind in expensive cities is going to be expensive. Still, primo waterfront land seems like an expense that just reduces the number of units you can build and the number of families you can help. Can anyone with real knowledge school me about this?
I forgot to show you the apartment we stayed at in Paris. Here it is:
The top picture shows the street we were on. At the far end among the greenery—about a two-minute walk—is Madeleine, and a short turn to the left leads to the metro station. The bottom picture shows the inner courtyard. The doors to the left lead to our apartment, which was on the second floor.
Within a three-minute walk there was a pharmacy, a small supermarket, a home-goods store, a boulangerie or two, a small park with a playground for kids, an insane amount of high-end shopping, and of course, loads of restaurants.
I didn't take any indoor pictures of the apartment, but it was an Airbnb rental so you can see dozens of indoor pictures if you want to. It was a great place: safe, quiet, nice shower and bathroom, a very usable little kitchen, and enough table space for blogging and sewing and so forth. (We ate in the living room so we could use the table for other stuff.) I'd stay there again in a heartbeat.
This is Hilbert rolling around on the backyard patio, only to be momentarily distracted by a dog walking by. Hilbert is oddly fascinated by dogs. Not afraid, precisely, and not sociable either, but always intrigued. What are these furry things that are almost like us? A strange breed of cat? Something else? What what what?
What did Republicans learn from Watergate? I'm here to explain:
Bipartisan investigations are very bad things. Following Iran-Contra, it became obvious that they were very, very bad things.
Partisan investigations are great! They are highly effective at damaging the opposition and should become a routine tool of Republican administrations.
On the 50th anniversary of Watergate it's good not to be naive about what it ultimately meant. It was responsible for royalty-gate; Whitewater and all its offspring; Benghazi; Hillary's phone; Hunter Biden; and so much more. Thanks a lot, Dick.
In addition, the absolute number of abortions increased; the abortion/pregnancy ratio increased; and this happened in every region of the country.
