Emily Tamkin in The New Statesman on the overturning of Roe:

I could reiterate that the laws that will now go into effect in many states banning abortion in most cases will disproportionately impact poor people, and people of colour, who do not necessarily have the financial resources or the time to go out of their home state to seek an abortion. Or I could say that, though the impact will be greatest in states where abortion will be outlawed, the whole country will be affected; a burden will now be put on providers in states where abortion remains legal, and women in those states, too, will probably find it harder to schedule an abortion.

People, people, women. Why not women, women, women? Compromise? Some fish for the piranhas so that they won’t eat her? Confusion?

I could note that people will die, which is what happens when people are forced to be pregnant. I could note that abortion should be legal regardless of the conditions for women and children, but that it is particularly rich that this country has stripped our federally guaranteed reproductive choice from us in the same year that women have faced shortages of baby formula and of tampons.

Just random mix-n-match, I guess – but why? It’s stupid, and it’s counter-productive. It makes zero sense to try to talk about abortion and bans on abortion while trying to veil the issue of the subordination of women. It’s not random that it’s women who are affected by abortion bans, it’s the whole point. Trying to veil that is like trying to veil racism when discussing slavery.

I could try to tell any women in the United States reading this who have had an abortion that I know that they did nothing wrong. I know that they made the right choice for themselves and their families, because they made their own choice. Everyone loves someone who’s had an abortion, the saying goes. I could tell you that I know and love people who have had an abortion.

Mix n match again. One “women,” one “someone,” one “people.” Feed those piranhas.