150 posts plus a cat

Yesterday marked my 150th post to this bog. I haven't been posting as much about science as I thought I would be. It'll be interesting to see what my next 150 posts are about.

This picture has as a base a picture of the same cat as the other day, Pippin, when he was sleeping next to a moon shaped neon light. I played with it a bit in Photoshop mainly because I had the program open while I was labeling data for a presentation at AACR (American Association for Cancer Research) and decided to do a cat picture too.

As a follow up to yesterday's post, I'd like to say that I'm a little surprised that nobody has mentioned the obvious flaw in the GOP strategy. That preserving or defeating Roe/Wade isn't all that big a deal. Despite all the fanfare, should Roe/Wade be defeated, abortion won't be illegal--it'll just be up to each individual state to either allow or not allow abortion to be performed.

Abortion was legal in the USA for the first century of our existance. Our legal code is based on English Common Law and that specifies that abortions are allowed until 'quickening,' when the movement of the fetus could first be felt. This changed in 1821 when Conneticut became the first state to make abortion illegal. Other states followed suit until by 1900 abortion was illegal in almost every state of the Union.

In 1967 Colorado passed a law allowing abortions to be legal in certain situations (rape, incest, danger to mother) and several other states soon followed. By 1973, when Roe v. Wade was decided, 13 states had relatively unrestricted abortion laws and 31 allowed abortion to save the mother's life. The reason I give this background is because should the Supreme Court strike down Roe/Wade, it's unlikely that most states would make abortion illegal. Even before 1973 the legal climate was changing to reflect social changes in the US. Further, it's a lot easier now to travel to another state to obtain an abortion should you live in a state where it's not allowed so the impact isn't as big as it once was. Here's a differing opinion on that.


Isheeta said…
A law buff too?! *drooling* happy 150th, Pippin looks really cute. I have a cute too, so I know!
utenzi said…
A cute what? I am most curious!
Considering that many pregnant women will not have the ability to go to another state for an abortion, I hardly think that it's accurate to say that overturning Roe v. Wade won't have an impact on abortion. Norma McCorvey couldn't get to another state. That's how the case came about. She had the baby, by the way. But you probably knew all that already.
utenzi said…
And she denies ever wanting an abortion and is now active in right-to-life.

I did think of your point, Liz but even a typical teenager these days can usually get to a bordering state. That wasn't as true 30 years ago and especially wasn't true in my parents time--and I've heard horror stories of what happened to people back then that they knew. I just don't think it'd be as bad now, Liz.
utenzi said…
That's a bizarre looking picture. I use an old laptop at work that I bought a long, long time ago. The screen is shot and I assure you, the picture I posted here looked a lot different on that screen. LOL
Teresa said…
Kids aren't as mobile as you might think. Driving ages have risen, parents keep tighter reigns. Surely, it's not impossible for a teenager to go to a neighboring state to abort an unwanted pregnancy, but they aren't the ones having the abortions anyway. In an alarming number of cases, teenagers adopt to have their babies unless the parents force the issue. And often it's the conservative (supposedly anti-abortion) faction that want their kids to be rid of the "problem".

So, it's really the somewhat responsible adult who will risk losing their job by having to travel to a nearby state to abort a fetus she doesn't want or can't afford.
utenzi said…
I do agree with you over the conservatives using abortion. That's always been the way with all of us. It's easy to take a moral stand--as long as you don't have to live with the consequences. I think we all do that--even if we try to ignore it.
Michelle said…
I just think they'll never never over turn RoeVWade

Love that neon picture....fabulous.
Lish said…
Congrats to your 150th, Utenzi. Thanks for the link. Good reading.
Oreo said…
First of all, let me say YAY lotsa kitties!! I KNEW you would find some good pictures to put up on here!! Then let me say, I normally don't get into politics or anything close to it on other peoples blogs...BUT... abortion is very dear to my heart. As a Christian, conservative mother of 3 it's pretty obvious which way I lean, I think it should be abolished everywhere. As for a woman's choice, you made the choice when you had sex. The child didn't. BTW, today is my oldest (non-aborted) son's birthday. Come say happy birthday Utenzi.
ribbiticus said…
love your photo! very creative. great post as usual. :)
princssis said…
I don't know why I didn't think since I was sent here by Michele that I should just look at your other posts! DUH!
Anyway, sounds like you've put a lot of thought into this topic.
Congratulations on your 150th post!
Am I mistaken, or is there a pro-life feline commenting on this blog? If so, I would like to know how the cat feels about spaying/neutering your pets?
Lisa M said…
I disagree with the idea that the impact of overturning Roe v. Wade would not be as big as it once was. And the political climate in America is conservative today, George Pataki just vetoed an Emergency Contraction bill that was passed by the NY State legislators.

The women who are on the lowest rung of our economic ladder have very difficult time traveling to safe abortion sites even today!

If certain states banned abortions, we would be in the same situation we were in in 1973 - rich women would have safe abortions and poor women be left to suffer and even die in some cases with illegal doctors in their states and in other cases trying to struggle to get to a safe one.

The gap between rich and poor is even wider today than it was in 1973. Who was left behind in New Orleans and who got out safely before the storm hit?

In addition to having to save for the cost of the abortion, poorer women would also have to save for travel and rooming expenses. They would have to take time off from work for the trip, losing income if they were lucky enough to have employment.

PLUS, the longer they have to save up for all of these expense, the more difficult and dangerous the abortion is because the more advanced the pregnancy becomes. Surely this would result in later term abortions than if the women could get one nearby.

I think it is dangerous for us to tell ourselves that the overturning of Roe v. Wade would not have a major impact on women, maybe not women of certain means, but for those who are living paycheck to paycheck or in poverty, it will be devestating.

And the whole point is that all women should have easy access to safe and clean health care, it is not just for the rich.
Lisa M,

utenzi said…
Well, both Liz and Lisa are a lot more politically inclined than I am so I'll bow to their greater knowledge of both politics and women's health.
panthergirl said…
Agreed, Liz and Lisa!! I remember when my 14 year old HS friend had to get an illegal abortion, in 1970. It was horribly frightening for her (took a cab, alone, gave a note to the cab driver and he took her to a gross and dirty basement where she LUCKILY came out alive.)

Let's keep the USA a free country. That is slipping away from us daily. (As far as "most states" keeping abortion legal, it would likely fall down the red state/blue state lines. Some girl in central Georgia or Mississippi would have to travel quite a distance to hit a blue state.)
panthergirl said…
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said…
The best place I have found for chevrolet venture is chevrolet venture
Pro Free Life said…
I'm neither pro-choice nor pro-life. But I'm pro-free-life! Check out www.ProFreeLife.com.

Popular posts from this blog

ankles: the sequel

Bread is Dangerous

is my potato breathing?