Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

I enjoyed learning about the history of abortion in Part 1, though the introduction seems to imply that this will be a collection of stories of those who experienced pregnancy loss. The authors say they conducted many interviews, so I thought the book would take the style of The Other Significant Others and just sort of talk about anecdotal cases. The beginning really focused on abortion history in America from colonial times to present day, then they started talking a lot about the facts of abortion, then towards the end they talked about the commodification of pregnancy / algorithmic tracking and targeted ads, and grief rituals. Though specific cases were mentioned, you didn't really sit with any one case for very long.

I especially appreciated the linguistic discussions towards the beginning and the mention of the lexical gap between "fetus" and "baby." However, for authors who very clearly think a lot about language, I found the tone of this book aggravating. The authors would often "comment" on the history or facts they were presenting with remarks like "Ugh. This guy", "Side eye", "Ahem", and "Woof." I get it, you're not happy about this history. But I don't need your commentary about it! This is definitely intentional since the authors are very cognizant about language, but I found it so grating and honestly distracting, and it gets worse before it gets better 🫠. The audiobook narration didn't help, though I am absolutely certain the narrator perfectly embodied the spirit and intention of the book. It's the spirit of the book I take issue with, not the narrator's valiant efforts to capture it. The only comment I actually found funny of these was when they mentioned Alexander Hamilton's desire to be with his wife and said something like 'Refer to the musical Hamilton for more about how this guy just can't say no to this." In any case, this book's high rating would indicate that most don't seem to mind the tone, are able to get past it to the meat of the book (like me), or actually enjoyed it.

Also, the authors would occasionally mention other media, and I found this annoying because they usually had different interpretations of this media than me. Like at one point they're talking about the Chicago World's Fair and they say something like, "Yep, the same one from The Devil in the White City. Apparently, there was actual stuff going on apart from the sneaky murderer in the shadows." Like, did they actually read the book? Half of the book isn't about the murders and is about the fair preparations, including all the stuff that would be happening at the fair. I actually preferred those chapters to those about H.H.Holmes., and my favorite parts were the ones where landscape architect Frederick Law Olmstead was planning the scenery of the fair and wanted to make sure the shades of green all complemented each other.
Similarly, the authors discuss how Dirty Dancing has abortion as part of it's plot but, according to them, all that people remember from that movie is not to put Baby in the corner. I think it's true that the broader culture only focuses on that and the final dance, but when I first saw the movie, I was shocked that it had so much depth and that abortion was part of the central plot. So I definitely remember the abortion. I think it's interesting how cultural staples like this actually have lots of discussion of stuff you would've assumed was kept hush-hush back then, i.e. I was similarly shocked when I first saw Grease and there was a plot involving a pregnancy scare. And like the authors, I first saw these films as a child. So there. TL;DR Even though the broader culture may shy away from discussing the abortion aspects of Dirty Dancing, I remember it, as I'm sure do many others.

The content of this book is important, especially if you don't know much about abortion. I don't think I'd recommend skipping it, even despite the tone, but I think the most important parts are toward the beginning if you want to give up when the author's side remarks start coming in every few sentences.

Key takeaways:
- Abortion used to be so commonplace and non-controversial that a popular general "textbook" by Benjamin Franklin included an abortion "recipe." This book was used to teach math in some places (it was a sort of catch-all textbook lol.)

- When we add amendments to abortion access, i.e. only in cases of rape/domestic abuse/life-saving, how do you prove these cases? What's the difference between saving a life versus preventing a very diminished quality of life? How long will it take to prove that rape/domestic abuse occurred, and by then will the pregnancy be over and the baby either lost or delivered?

- Giving birth has a higher mortality rate than abortion. When we deny abortion, maternal death rates will rise because some of those cases would have been avoided with an abortion. Miscarriage rates will also (seem to) rise since some of those pregnancies would have previously been aborted before the miscarriage would have had chance to occur.

- "...she [author Rebecca Little] started to think more about the terminology. Was it an abortion? By medical definition, yes. By common American parlance, maybe? Yes? Some in Rebecca's own family vehemently disagree with this and say, 'I do not consider what you had an abortion.' Why not? Because it wasn't a dilation and evacuation (D&E)? The distinction is usually because they understand the reasoning: the twins were terminally ill. But let's be real. It's also because she was married, already a mother, and her babies were desperately wanted. She wasn't the imaginary harlot of anti-abortion propaganda. The wanted versus unwanted categories of baby represent an unfortunate hierarchy in who is deemed worthy of sympathy and choice: a 'good loss' versus a 'bad loss.'"
At this point I realized that I, too, would not have categorized Little's procedure as an abortion because the children were wanted (the motherhood and marriage didn't factor in for me). It is important to expand the definition of abortion in our daily usage so that when we say "abortion access/care," people don't automatically just imagine a sleazy woman who got into "trouble" and now wants out of it. I think the word "abortion" generally though is not great. I mean, it has the word "abort" in it. I also think it's pretty hard to change word perception once a word has become so highly politicized.
- "Writer and historian Daniella Bly [? I'm transcribing from audio here] put a fine point on it. 'From a medical perspective, miscarriage and abortion are the same, even if the language we use and the emotions associated with the two experiences are not.' [Not sure if the quote ends here or later. Again, transcribing from audio.] One key difference? Talking about your miscarriage won't get you death threats."
Another reason we need to use the word abortion more, so people understand when they want to limit abortion care, they are limiting miscarriage care.

- "Meanwhile, America is the only developed nation where maternal mortality rates are actually increasing. The United States has 32.9 deaths per 100,000 live births, the highest in the developed world. Maternal deaths across the United States more than doubled over the course of two decades. Black mothers are more than three times as likely to die from pregnancy-related issues than white mothers..."

- "But the rights granted under the Roe decision were chipped away with the passage of the Hyde Amendment in 1976, which made it illegal for Medicaid, the nation's public health insurance for low-income Americans, a program then only a decade old, to cover any abortions that were not medically indicated to save the life of the pregnant person. This is the only legal medical service for which this qualifier is included. No one's hernia surgery is denied because it isn't life saving. The Hyde Amendment has been reaffirmed every year since, though it now includes very qualified exceptions for rape or incest, and possibly the health of the mother if two doctors agree. ... The Hyde Amendment had a long tail. It enshrined subsequent restrictions on federal funds for abortion to prohibit access for indigenous women, federal employees on government insurance, PeaceCorps volunteers, Washington DC residents, military personnel, veterans and their dependents, federal prisoners, and those in immigration detention facilities. As of 2023, the Hyde Amendment is in effect across 34 states and the District of Columbia, while 16 states use their own funds to pay for abortion under Medicaid."

- "Approximately one in four pregnant Medicaid users seeking to terminate end up carrying to term because they can't afford an abortion."

- "A 2015 study showed the majority of those surveyed thought miscarriages occurred in 5% or less of all pregnancies. Nope. Between 1/3 and 1/2 of women will experience pregnancy loss, and one in four women will get an abortion."