Hello everybody and welcome to Think Tech Hawaii's Dokomomo Hawaii program. I am the host Soto Brown and I'm from Vision Museum here in Honolulu. And we're talking about mid-century architecture, that's what Dokomomo is, that's an organization that supports and studies mid-century, 20th century architecture. So today I'm looking at a specific type of trend that occurred during the 20th century and that's modernizing or updating or changing architecture or interior direction, decorations. For various reasons, sometimes it's to improve a building, sometimes it's to fix things that are outmoded or replace things that are now no longer in use. It's to improve the conditions of things using more modern materials, but very frequently this type of modernization occurred specifically to make something look more up-date. And behind me you can see the surf bar at the Royal Hawaiian Hotel as it appeared when it was remodeled or created for the first time in 1947. There had been bars in the hotel before that, but this one as you can see is very much from that time period. And modernizing was not just for the other reasons I said, but also particularly because in cases where there was business competition, you wanted to look new, you wanted to look better, you wanted to look more modern. And it was also because as time passed in the 20th century, older forms of architecture or interior decoration became obsolete and looked not only not modern, but they were actually considered ugly, so they were replaced. So let me take you on a journey through modernizing in the 20th century and let's go to the first slide. Okay, now, first we're going to look at pictures of buildings that changed their exteriors. We start with a picture of the Hawaii Theater. This building was built in 1922 and is still standing today on Bethel Street in downtown Honolulu. And it has a very classical appearance to its facade. It's got Grecian style columns. But as you can see, there's very little exterior advertising, the fact that this is a movie theater is not really very prominent. This picture was taken in the early 1930s and while there is a marquee, as you can see in the canopy over the sidewalk, there's some decoration on it. But it doesn't really tell you that it's a movie theater and there's no easy way to see what movie is now playing. This is not, by the way, the original marquee. This has already been replaced once since the theater opened. Well, from this very understated one, let's go to the next picture. And here's what happened when the theater got remodeled in 1936. They put on this really big neon lit up marquee. Here's a picture of it in 1946. One of the reasons it hadn't had a big marquee before was because neon had not come to the United States yet, didn't get to the United States until 1923. It was invented in France and didn't come to the Hawaiian islands until 1929. But then after that, big things like this one were created. And so now this is the way we think of the Hawaii Theater today and as of other theaters from that time period, big lit up marquees that told you what was going on and attracted you. This is the next picture. This is another building that was used for entertainment at the time in Honolulu. It's a civic auditorium. It was built about 1930. And in the upper photograph, you can see the way it looked originally. In the 1930s, it has one small sign and it's got banners that are hanging from that overhang over the sidewalk that say what the upcoming events are. Well, in the early 1950s, it got remodeled. And among the things that got changed were that awning now has a wider edge to it with multiple bands of neon in it. And they've got this big front section on the front of the building that covers up the older part. And it says civic auditorium really big and it's got some 50s motifs that are sort of pagan or primitive or Hawaiian style. And it's also got marquees on either side that can tell you that wrestling is coming up, that they've got wrestling every week. And I can tell you, by the way, that I used to not only attend some of the wrestling matches here, but I went to some other events in the civic auditorium before it was demolished in 1973. It was pretty much of a dump. Anyway, let's go to the next picture and here's downtown Honolulu. This is Fort Street seen from King Street. And we've got two views of that, 1938 at the top and 1954 at the bottom. Fort Street was the main shopping street of Honolulu at the time. This is where the biggest stores were located. So if you wanted to go shopping for important stuff, you came downtown to Fort Street. The buildings in both of those pictures are exactly the same, but you can tell that they look quite different. And that's because after World War II, the facades were remodeled quite dramatically to make them look different. So first, let's look at what was on the left side of this intersection. Let's go to the next picture. And here we've got a comparison. Now, these again are the same buildings, but they don't look very much the same. And that's because in the older view, you can see that these buildings have these ornate facades, lots of carved stone, lots of ornate little details. But ironically, that only is on the part that faces out to the street. You can see that the other sides of the building are left completely plain. So this big tall building has got just a plain brick wall, which looks pretty peculiar. But in any case, that now has turned into this featureless, mostly white group of boxes that looks like it's one big building. Actually, it's those same three buildings that were all taken over by the Liberty House Department Store. And they've all had this facade put on them to make them look like they're all part of one complex. And that was the style that was done at that time. It was considered, again as I said earlier, Victorian style or old fashioned style exterior decorations were considered obsolete and unattractive. You wanted to cover them up and that's what they did. And we'll go to the next picture, which is the other side of that same intersection. This is the McIntyre building from 1900. And again, look at all of the carvings that are on this facade here, particularly on the sort of diagonal part that's facing us right on the corner. But also look up the street on the left, that's Fort Street. And the entrance to this building looks like a Gothic cathedral.  Nothing to do with a religion, but that's just the style that was popular at that time. Eventually, this whole building was taken over by McInerney, which is another big local store. And after World War II, 1947, the building got changed. And it went to look like this in our next picture. And here it is in 1954, again. Same building, doesn't even look like it. An entirely new facade has been constructed. And if you look at the second and third stories, they're just the upper part. Not only is that mostly featureless with just one big logo on the corner. You can see that they've kept the same general outline of the building as it was with the two facades facing the street. But then a diagonal section on the corner where the logo is. But those panels, which have been put on the outside of the building, it may not show in the picture, are actually corrugated metal. That's an inexpensive material to use to, again, cover up the detailing, make it featureless, make it plain, sleek, and modern. Next picture, directly next door to the McInerney store was this building, which is the Kauike-Olani building, built probably about 1915. Again, very classical. It's got Grecian style columns on its facade. There's also a difference between the bottom floor, the first floor, and we've got these horizontal grooves. And then much more vertical elements in the other two floors. Well, if you look at the building on the right, if you look at the picture on the right, the building now has been completely disguised. It's had a very quick and easy makeover in the front with the installation of a tall metal screen, which serves to obscure but not completely cover up the original facade. And now at the bottom level on the first floor right against the street, it's been sheathed in patterned marble. And when I looked at this picture again, I could remember it came back to me, what that used to look like when you walked by. So again, we've covered up the detailing and we've made it look more modern and more up to date. More in keeping with what the architectural styles were of the time. By the way, don't go looking for any of these buildings. Most of the ones that I've showed you already are gone and that's gonna be true of a lot of the things I'm gonna show you in this. Can't see them again because they've all been demolished. Okay, next picture. Now, this is another downtown building. This was the Central YMCA, Young Men's Christian Association, built in about 1910, 1915. In the top picture, that's the way it looked originally. YMCA moved to its new facility on Atkinson Drive near Waikiki in 1952. And it left this building behind. And it was remodeled into an office building and renamed the Merchandise Mart building. So as you can see, most of that exterior has now been completely covered up with again, the smooth facade that was popular. But they left those two open colonnades on the top floor. So that there's a little bit of the old building still showing it. As a kid, I always remember thinking that that looked weird. Why were those sort of disparate elements in this otherwise modern appearing building? Well, that's why I didn't know at the time what the original building looked like. Although, when you went inside, it looked considerably older inside than it did on the outside. And I do remember thinking that in the 1960s. Again, this building is gone. But this was on the corner of Bethel Street and Hotel Street. Next picture. So, in Waikiki, there was a somewhat landmark building, a noticeable building, starting in 1937. And that was the, what's called the Waikiki Theatre Block. The Waikiki Theatre itself had opened in 1936. And it was this streamlined, modern style building. It was a real landmark in Waikiki when it was created. Next door to it, the following year, the Waikiki Theatre Block was constructed. Now, despite the name, there was no physical connection between the two buildings. There was actually a driveway between them. But the Waikiki Theatre Block mimicked the appearance of the Waikiki Theatre itself. Again, a streamlined 1930s style structure. The Waikiki Theatre Block was made up of small individual retail spaces. And if you look at the picture on the bottom, on the far right, you can see part of the name, the Liberty House. Well, I showed you the Liberty House earlier in downtown Honolulu. That was the main local department store. And after these pictures were taken in the early 1950s, Liberty House took over most of the Waikiki Theatre Block, took out a lot of the interior partitions, and turned it all into a Liberty House store. And the next picture from 1967 shows you what the result was. This is a 1950s style remodeling. It doesn't even look like the same building. And as I think with most of what I've been showing you, some of these you wouldn't even recognize were older buildings. I didn't, as a kid, realize that these things had happened until many years later when I actually studied the older photographs and figured out that these remodellings and modernizing had occurred. The 1950s remodeling of the Waikiki Theatre Block incorporated something that we've talked about in the past, very typical of the time period. They planted full-grown coconut palms in planter boxes on the sidewalk in front of the building, and they made circular holes in the canopy that covered the sidewalk for the palm trees to go through. And that was something very popular in the 50s and 60s. You saw a lot of it in Waikiki. So here, and if you're wondering where this was, I can tell you in the distance behind the building, you can see a big tree. That's the Banyan Tree that's still standing at the international marketplace. And beyond that is the original high rise of the Princess Kayu Lani Hotel, which is still there, although it may not be for very long, however. So again, you cannot go see this building. It was demolished in 1969. This is where the Waikiki Beachcomber Hotel is now standing today. Just like everything else, Waikiki is a land of high rises, and we've lost most of these older buildings. Next picture. So now, we've looked at exteriors of buildings. Let's look at interiors of buildings. And changing the interiors for interior decor is something that was very popular even before the time period. I've just been discussing the post-war period. These are two pictures from the Lewers and Cook Company, which was located downtown. It was the main building supply company here in the Hawaiian Islands at the time. The upper picture is from about 1920, and it is the wallpaper department. The lower picture from 1939, that's the flooring department. But look at the difference. The wallpaper department has a lot of different stuff going on, lots of patterns, lots of different elements. And it also has this wicker seti or wicker couch that's kind of a complicated looking thing. You look at the Armstrong flooring department, now we've got this one cohesive wall display element that shows all those flooring patterns without a lot of other stuff going on, and the furniture has been replaced so that it is now this chrome streamlined chairs, super fashionable at that time. Let's go to the next picture, and here again is Lewers and Cook. And look what they've done here. In 1920, at the top left, we've got offices, we've got desks that are just sitting out in the middle of the open space, where people are also selling hardware. They're selling doors and hinges and stuff like that. Well, in 1939, in the lower picture, in a different department, they've now walled these places off. They've created cubicles, but they've got these nice streamlined, sleek, art deco style walls that they've put in and a low sort of a barrier with a swinging gate there as well. This is, again, to make this look modern. It's for your customers to realize you're up to date, and that's very important for a lot of businesses. Next picture. I work at Bishop Museum, and Bishop Museum went through a lot of significant interior modernizations of various exhibit halls in the early 1950s when we got a new director who was Dr. Alexander Spore. Dr. Spore very wisely realized that he needed to engage with the community more, and he needed to be bringing people back into Bishop Museum to see changing exhibits. Bishop Museum's main buildings, all being very Victorian and very old-fashioned looking, were kind of a barrier to people thinking that there was anything happening. So in order to get people in, in order to get them to support the museum, these changes were made. So here is what was called the vestibule gallery, and the vestibule gallery was one of the first exhibit spaces in the museum when it opened in 1891, and although you can't clearly see here, this gallery consisted of three standing cases, plate glass surroundings where the objects were placed, held within Ornate Coa frame. Well, this picture from the 1920s shows that originally thing, and next picture, early 1950s the vestibule gallery was stripped of all the Victorian detailing, and it was turned into a modern style room. If you look at the lower picture, you can see the floor now is covered with patterned linoleum from the 1950s. You look right next to the door, you see this freestanding white panel that's supported by just one metal rod. Again, to look modern, and then up at the top there's this sort of rough textured lath laid vertically in sort of a free-form pattern to again make this look 50s. This then became a changing exhibit room. Next picture. Another of the original galleries, the Cahili room, was very dramatically changed. Upper picture, you see again, original cabinetry, original display cabinets to display Cahili, and those are Cahili, the feather standards that you see in the picture. The room was specifically created with a high ceiling to accommodate Cahili. And in the lower picture, you can see what happened. After it got remodeled, it became, again, a changing exhibit space. If you look against the far wall, you can see there are windows set up near the top with kind of a vaulted ceiling above them. You can see that in both of those pictures that you sort of place yourself as to where you are. Next photo. And again, the Cahili room. If you look at the picture on the left, this is again in the 50s after the remodeling had occurred. And what they've done is very typical of the 50s. There's this sort of free form sign that says, what does it say? Something of old Hawaii, I can't remember what it says. But it's displayed against and with actual Hawaiian artifacts. But primitive art, as we say, or as was called at that time, was very popular at the time. And the juxtaposition of the primitive with the modern was considered very trendy and very fashionable. So those vertical things that you see with the sign against them, those are spears. Those are original traditional ancient Hawaiian spears. So they've been incorporated into a 50s style interior decor. And the picture on the lower part shows, again, what the Cahili room turned into when it was a changing exhibit gallery. Which, by the way, we've taken it back to being the Cahili room. And it no longer looks like that. Next picture. The major change in Bishop Museum was in what was called Polynesian Hall, which was constructed in 1894. And as you see in this early photograph, it was very typical of Victorian museums. It's got lots of stuff. It's got ornate detailing of wood as well as other textures and colors and shapes. So it's a very busy interior. And all of these things are displayed. Against the wall, there's an array of spears. Against the far wall. Hanging overhead, we've got a fake octopus. All of this stuff put together. Well, that was all going to change in the 1950s again. Next picture. And all of this, I showed you earlier with the other two rooms, completely stripped out. Now, at the time, this made a lot of sense. But in later years, of course, we're sorry that we lost that detailing. And part of the problem with modernizing is sometimes you lose things that you cannot replicate. Because the technique isn't there anymore. The material isn't there anymore. Whatever. Well, what Polynesian Hall eventually looked like, next picture, is this. There is the top picture looking from the mezzanine down to the first floor in its original configuration, and then what it eventually turned into. I never liked that 1950s remodeling. It felt small and cramped and claustrophobic. And I was very grateful in the not too long ago, 10 years ago or so, when we totally took it back to a very close approximation of what it had originally looked like. So in a subsequent renovation, we took it back to its original appearance. It looks much better now. Next picture. Here, this is an interior of the Bank of Hawaii building in downtown Honolulu. And look very carefully. This is the way it appeared in the 1920s. And the next picture is exactly the same view, but it doesn't look anything like it. That's because what had been a two-story open space has now been turned into a one-story. So that big, tall ceiling has now been covered up with a 50s remodeling. That's the way it was done back in those days. There were other downtown buildings that did the same thing, where they had big sort of atriums and they filled them in. Wasted space, that was what was thought of. Next picture. OK, let's look now specifically at the Royal Hawaiian Hotel, opened in 1927. And originally, again, very different from what it turned into. Look at the ceiling, how the beams here have stenciled painted designs. Look at the abundance of different styles of furniture and lamps. Look at the carpeting on the floor. That's, again, another texture. Well, all of that changed with the remodeling in 1947. This same lounge looked like. Let's go to the next picture. This, and they've stripped away the carpeting. They've put all the plotted plants together in certain enclosed locations. All those different lamps, different styles of things are all stripped away. The painted ceiling is gone. And now it's very sleek and modern. Next picture. And let's look here at a hotel room. And again, lots of different stuff going on on the far wall of a fussy drapery pattern, different styles of furniture. And from that, in the 1930s, next picture, we go to this in 1947. Detailing stripped away, sleek, similar, unadorned surfaces, some bold patterns, but not a lot of ornate stuff. And next picture, the thing that really changed the most at the Royal Hawaiian was the dining room. This is the original dining room. Look at all the stuff going on, on the floor, on the walls, on the ceiling. There are stars painted on the ceiling. Original dining room, very ornate and very detailed. But we go from this view to the next picture. And this picture explains why the Royal Hawaiian underwent such a major amount of renovation. Because right after Pearl Harbor was attacked in 1941, the US Navy took over the Royal Hawaiian, used it for R&R, just for military men. And after several years of that during the war, a lot of wear and tear, as you see here, here's our ornate dining room again, not only did they have to redo all the interiors and fix them up, but they chose to entirely demolish the old dining room and replace it with, next picture, this dining room. Here, it's totally stripped down. There is no decoration. The point is that it went from an enclosed room where you looked at the room around you, and not what was outside, to a room that instead was focused on the view, not on the interior detailing. And so in the next picture, this is the whole point. They wanted you to now look out on the ocean, look out on the beach, and look at diamond head in the distance. So it's got a steel framework that contains late glass, so that now you look out rather than stay inwards. And this today is called the Monarch Room, and it is still present like this today. Next picture. OK, we're going to end by looking at some religious structure. This is St. Andrew's Cathedral on Baratana Street in downtown Honolulu. St. Andrew's was started in the 1800s, and it looked very traditional and very cathedral-like, cut stone, exterior, et cetera. But as big as it was, they never had enough money to totally finish it off the way they wanted to. So the part facing onto Baratana Street just had this plain wooden facade on it. However, next picture, by 1957 there was so much termite damage to the building that they needed to do a major renovation. And when they did that, they built a whole new front to the building. And so as you can see in this picture, they've built this exterior. They put more construction on the outside. And next picture, this is the end result. We now have a 50s style facade containing the stained glass window, a metal framework contained within stone that mimics the back of the building, the rest of the building. But this front part is totally 50s and totally modern. Next picture. And even more dramatic change occurred in Waikiki with the St. Augustine Chapel, Catholic Chapel. It started out in 1901 as this small wooden building. Looks very picturesque. And if we go to the next picture, this is the inside of the building. And this was a really remarkable building because it didn't have solid walls. As our friend Martin likes to say, it was very easy breezy because the whole building was latticework. The air just came in and out. Very pretty, very nice, very tropical. But termites took their toll. And next picture, 1961, that building was replaced by the present St. Augustine's Church, which is typical of that time period in that. In the United States, churches, which had been the most traditional structures in many communities, suddenly shifted, in many cases, to being the most avant-garde structures in their community. So St. Augustine's turned into this pointy, angular, space age thing. Unlike the rendering that you see here, however, the facade never faced directly onto the street. There was always a building in front of it that they were not able to remove. So unfortunately, you never got the full view of the church. Next picture. So this is what the church ended up looking like, a space age modern building in a growing Waikiki that was increasingly filled with high rises. It's still there today. And it used to be a lot more prominent than it is now, because of course, buildings have grown up a great deal around it. Unfortunately, again, as I say, you've never been able to look at it, unobstructed, without something right in front of it. OK, thank you all for joining us. That brings us to the end of the program. Again, this is just a touch of the many different things that could be discussed from the mid-century period of architecture here in the Hawaiian Islands. It's just one part of it. Thank you for joining me. I'm DeSoto Brown. And I'll see you again on Think Tech in the very near future for further discussions for human-humane architecture and Dokomomo Hawaii. Till then, aloha, everybody.


Alright, this is just a quick review to show everyone where these pulleys came from, where I got them from. These I swear, I just opened these up just now and decided to do a video. They were packaged very nicely. The bags were not ripped open in any way. This is the tiny boxes they were in. Okay. Let's check them out. Let's take a closer look. So this is the new one. And this is the old one. Okay. NSK, NSK, made in Japan, both same part number I guess, 6006DU2. These are different. This says 041, mine says 115. But they are exactly the same. Same story goes for the back. Just a different number here, 061 on this one and then a 145 on mine. Guess how much I paid? This is Amazon 30 bucks compared to dealer, not even 30 bucks, what am I saying? Gates. Gates are, which are no longer made in Japan. They get them from Mexico or China or whatever. And they're not even the same exact ones like this. And they charge a bit over 30 some dollars. Stay away from those. This one was $17, $17. Okay, I also got another one, which is the Cogged one I guess. That's what you call it. Here's mine. Okay, that's bad. Here's the new one, no play at all, as quiet as they get. Let's compare the letters, 6005DWA, made in Japan by NSK. And again these little numbers, they don't match, 441, 075, I don't know, that's probably something in the factory, they stamp. But even the inside here, this says EP, this says EP. And the gear on the outside, seven something, it's kind of worn off, maybe a zero on mine. I've got an SC, ZA, SC on the new one, EP, EP on the inner race or the outer race I should say. And it also says EP on the inner race, NSK made in Japan. There you go, this one was about $19. This is crazy. I mean the dealer will charge $90 for this and about $80 for this one. So yeah boys, get them while they're hot. This is for, by the way, this is from an 06 STI, the one a full engine rebuild. I hope this helps.


All right, okay, we have quite a good crowd here. So again, I'm Bob Trug, I direct the Center for Bioethics at Harvard Medical School and welcome to the public lecture series that we do contemporary books in bioethics. And today we are so privileged to have Professor Katie Watson going to be talking about her recent book, Scarlet A. But before I introduce her, let me just go through a few ground rules here in terms of how we work. So the event is being recorded. It's being live streamed via Facebook and it will be posted on the Center for Bioethics Facebook and YouTube pages. You have two ways of participating. One is through the chat box and the other is through the Q&A box. And they're a little bit different. So in the question and answer period, I will be looking just at the Q&A box. So the chat box is to communicate with Ashley Troutman if you're having any technical difficulties, she'll be monitoring that box or to just make general comments to the other participants on the webinar. But in terms of participating in the Q&A, please use the Q&A box. And our website is there. So to look ahead for other events that we're doing, please check us out there. And there also is our Twitter handle as well. So let me go ahead and get started and introduce Professor Katie Watson. She is a lawyer. She trained at New York University School of Law. And after practicing for a while, she became a bioethicist, showing that there is life after law school. And she got training in clinical medical ethics at the University of Chicago Medical School McLean Center and also education in medical humanities at the Feinberg School of Medicine. And she currently teaches law ethics and humanities at Northwestern University, sorry, we're not in Boston, Northwestern University's master's program in bioethics and medical humanities. She's served a number of different roles. She was on the Northwestern Memorial Hospital Ethics Committee for a long time. She has served on the board of directors of the American Society of Bioethics and Humanities on the editorial board of the AMA Journal of Ethics. She is on the board of the National Abortion Federation as well as the National Medical Council of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. Something that I did not know about her is that she also has a background in theater. She participates with Chicago's Second City Theater and she has developed a training curriculum using improvisational approaches to teach about doctor-patient communication, something I'd like to learn more about. But the reason we're here today is to discuss her recent 2018 book, excuse me, Scarlet A, The Ethics, Law and Politics of Ordinary Abortion. I read the book the first time when she came to Harvard, I think it was a couple of years ago to deliver our later lecture on reproductive ethics and it was just an amazing talk and so well received. And so I thought I would have her back for the book's course. So, Katie, I think I'm gonna turn it over to you now and we'll go ahead and get started. Thank you so much, Dr. Traug. It's a genuine honor to be here. When I first became the director of the ethics course that was then required of our second year students, when I designed the session on reproductive ethics, I thought it was important to talk about abortion care in addition to the technologies we usually associate with the topic of reproductive ethics. And I began by explaining to my students the data of the day, which was that before menopause, one in three American women were expected to have an abortion. And the numbers alone were part of what made it relevant to them, the numbers of patients, family members, colleagues who would have this procedure meant at minimum it deserved their attention no matter what specialty they were going into. And so today we were going to delve into some of those issues as well. And I went on to make my next point and as perhaps other teachers had the experience, the class just erupted into whispers and they just sort of turned into each other like a 1930s musical where they were like one in three, did she say one in three? It can't be one in three. And you just have this choice as a teacher like here's your agenda and the class has just moved elsewhere. And so I stopped and I said, I hear what you're saying. That seems amazing. I am shocked as well. And the true embarrassing confession is that I had looked up the number the night before. And that day was just an epiphany that led me on a journey that took over a decade and resulted in this book in part to realize that I was a lawyer who had a fellowship in what we called reproductive freedom back then and I taught the constitutional law of abortion. I thought I knew a lot about abortion. They were medical students so we're learning the Madison of abortion. And yet none of us knew some of the most important facts about abortion. And in medicine, is this medical issue common or uncommon is just such a basic fact. And so how is it that if we didn't know that, we experts, what else were we missing about this conversation? And so that led me on this journey to learn more and I'm gonna just share a little bit of that with you today. I just had this sense that there's something wrong with the American abortion debate. We're missing something. And in the course of what I learned, I did come to believe that we can do better. So first, why didn't we know this number? Well, there are multiple reasons but I think this is one fantastic explanation. If you go to scholars call this the prevalence paradox. How can something so common be framed or conceptualized as deviant? And they explain this circle. Women who have abortions face discrimination. Women fear stigmatization for engaging in abortion behavior. And they use that term because they're also referring to those who work in abortion care.  They're not gonna tell you, I'm director of my local Planned Parenthood, right? Cause I don't wanna talk about it for two hours. Then women under report and intentionally misclassify abortion behavior. Abortion is thought to be uncommon, not normative. A social norm is perpetuated that abortion is deviant and we're back to the discrimination, right? That prevalence paradox, the silence around the procedure for the patients and people themselves. And I wanna say in this talk, there are people across the binary, there are people who do not identify as women who are capable of pregnancy. And so sometimes you'll hear me use the inclusive word person or people but I'm also speaking of a long history of very specific gender discrimination against women. People who understood themselves and were understood to be women. So I'll use that word a lot too and I'm hoping we can hold that tension together. So what I came to realize is because of this stigma, because of this silence, excuse me, we hear more about the idea of abortion than the experience of abortion. And that's a problem in medical ethics because good ethics always start with good medical facts. It's also the case that in the medical humanities we wanna look at from other disciplinary perspectives and without that raw material, it does make it difficult. I realized that abortion was our era's scarlet A. And that just made me want to look further and learn more. So why do I care or why do I care about prevalence? Anyone over the age of 12 has heard their parents say that just because everybody's doing it doesn't make it right. I think most bioethicists would agree. But there are two reasons I'm interested in prevalence. The first is represented by this photograph. My basketball career began and ended in seventh grade. But the one thing I remember from that painful season is ignore the eyes, look away from the head. The head will fake you out, watch the body. The body doesn't lie when you're guarding someone. And in this book, I realized I'm not interested in what you tell Gallup when they call you on the phone. Also, who answers their phone anymore? I'm interested in behavior. The number I gave you at the beginning is no longer correct. That was almost 15 years ago. Today, the number is 24%. One in four American women who are between ages 15 and 44, if those current rates hold steady, will are expected to have an abortion. Looking at the numbers in other ways, every year, 18% of all US pregnancies end in induced abortions. This doesn't count miscarriages, where the products of conception do not pass and you have to do an abortion procedure. These are otherwise healthy pregnancies being interrupted. If you only look at unintended pregnancies, 42% end in abortion. And so my first idea was, is the United States as conflicted about abortion as we say we are? Our behavior suggests a general embrace in many ways of the procedure, certainly a high utilization rate. And the second reason is that the American medical ethics and patient rights revolution is premised on the idea that patients are moral agents. They're moral thinkers. And so medicine can supply facts and statistics and data and patients will filter that information and those options through their values and their life circumstances. And together, clinician and patient will come to whatever seems to be best in this more robust global, not just exclusively biological way for that patient. And so I thought, why wouldn't I give? And as a bioethicite, I'm trained to give the millions of patients who choose this procedure, almost a million a year, and their partners and families, the same dignity of moral thought that we give those who may oppose or choose to continue an unintended and actually unwanted pregnancy. So the numbers are the lowest they've ever been since Roe versus Wade decided and still one in four American women will have them. I thought that was worth our attention. These other observation and other observation I had, which was that the cases I would hear about in the news or with advocacy groups were always the extreme cases. And I'm a lawyer, rhetorically, that makes sense. You put forward your most compelling situation as the example, but for those who support abortion rights, it would be terrible anomalies, medical cases, rapes, very young patients. And for those oppose abortion rights, it would be examples of what they framed as abusive abortion, like a procedure that they thought was inappropriate or claims that Planned Parenthood was not being respectful to fetal tissue. Those kind of things. However, what that left out was what I came to term ordinary abortion, which is hard to get a perfect number, but it's approximately 95% of the abortions in the United States. And I know that word ordinary is provocative. I'll share a little behind the music tip. Originally I proposed the book be titled Ordinary Abortion, Colon, Academic, Academic and Oxford by publisher said, refused, because they said it sounded like I wasn't taking abortion seriously. And I wanna assure you that I take abortion very seriously, but I was looking for a term that would both capture the frequency, the prevalence, but also medically that abortion is a very safe procedure. You're more likely to die from running a marathon or getting your wisdom teeth extracted.  And we don't always think about abortion or contraception as new technologies and they're not. They've been with us for centuries, but the ability to have the high efficacy and to have them be very, very safe is new, right? And we think in medical ethics of like new technologies that then become normalized or routinized, but how they challenge us in terms of medical ethics and law at the end of life. Traditionally, we really focus there or in reproductive, in assistance in reproduction, but we don't always think about how contraception and safe abortion are new technologies that opened up other worlds of possibility. They've become ordinary medically. So the second epiphany I had was that the cases we discuss are the ones that occur the least. And again, that's not all likely. It doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss those cases. It means we might not get the most robust or applicable analysis from them if we only look at them exclusively. So let's go from the abstract to the concrete because in abortion care, you have to work harder to reduce the idea of an abortion to the almost a million people who choose abortion every year. This is nationally representative, very large sample size survey of women receiving abortions. What are their reasons? And it's fascinating to me that they were allowed to pick more than one reason and that this reasoning is multifactorial. The median number of reasons women checked was four. I don't know if you would have predicted. I wouldn't have predicted. Let me say that I can't afford a baby right now, 73% would be such a high number. But then when they were asked in the same survey, what is the most important reason? If you had to pick one, these numbers shift and can't afford a baby becomes number one of the top reasons. I'm interested now in new work in childcare policy and how desperately, unfamily friendly our country is. It'd be interesting if we really had robust social safety nets and child policies that allowed people to raise the children they wanted to have if the abortion rate would go down a little bit for folks in that category, we could find out. But it's fascinating to me that when you look at the number one reason the 4% the lowest would interfere with my education or career plan. The reasons that are given are really more network reasons about the people around you, the life situation that you're in in terms of parenting. One is in. It's also when you look at the statistics, 59% of abortion patients are mothers. They already have a child. And I just will share my surprise that I realized how naive I had been teaching constitutional law this time. I just never understood or pictured mothers were the two thirds of the people practically in the waiting room. A third of them have two or more children. And so when you go back to the reasons the idea not ready for another child, other people depending on me or can't afford many people are working to raise the families that they have. I put at the bottom, this is not part of this good maca slide, 88% of abortion patients are dating or married the man they got pregnant with. And I don't mean to valorize romantic love or marriage or stigmatize the people who aren't. But just to point out, we have this idea of this women's issue and this individual making a decision and legally abortion is absolutely an individual right. But socially it rarely actually in action is an individual choice or that's in the minority. The majority of these people are consulting with their partners and their partners are in agreement. So even why don't we think of it as a couples issue or a family issue? That challenged my thinking. I also was unaware until I dug into this that half of abortion patients have incomes under the federal poverty line. So for a single person this year, I think that's around $12,500. And then another 26% are in that 100 to 200%. So it'd be $24,000-ish. And then this is difficult to talk about but I've come to believe it's important to name. Women of color are overrepresented in the demographics of abortion patients. 59% of abortion patients are women of color and that's in contrast to representation of 38% of the US population. So when you talk about abortion restrictions, the people who those hurt the most are poor women of color. And that frames this differently for me. The people that hurts the most are mothers. And we can make of that what we want. You and I may have different opinions but I think we would be remiss to not understand that when we have these conversations. Why are women of color disproportionately represented? Well, it's that economic issue is not the exclusive reason but it is the absolutely vast majority of the reason that the tragic intersection between race and poverty in our country that women of color are so disproportionately represented among when we talk about women in poverty. So that's the primary explanation for that. Abortion, why does anyone seek an abortion? Well, it's because they have a pregnancy they didn't want to continue. So let's go to the next step deeper about unintended pregnancies. There is a dramatic health disparity in unintended pregnancy. And again, I did not know any of this. For women, 200% and above the poverty line. So again, that's $24,000 a year for an individual. That's not an amazing amount of money but going on up 30% of pregnancies are unintended. Under the poverty line, 60% are unintended. So a reason that you see more abortion patients who are poor is because women living under the poverty line have more unintended pregnancies. Now we could do a whole separate lecture on what is happening there, right? Is it lack of access to effective contraception? Is it lack of interpersonal power to insist on contraception? Is it, when we talk in intended, you know, this idea of an unplanned pregnancy. Planning is a value that not everyone shares. The idea that, well, if I'm gonna time this, assumes a certain that things will change in the future and that there'll be a better or worse time to become a parent. So there's so many complicated things going on here that there's no data that perfectly unpacks it. But we don't usually use the concept of healthcare disparity in this area. And that's a mistake because actually as contraceptive technology has improved and insurance coverage for it has improved for many women of means, abortion care has become even more concentrated among poor women. So when we in medical schools do our healthcare disparity teaching, you know, it's diabetes, hypertension, like the idea of why are there differentials either among income groups or racial groups that aren't explained by biology and how can we ameliorate those differences? Abortion care and unintended pregnancy should be right on those lists. But certainly abortion care truly never is. And that's a mistake. However, I wanna leave you with one other take home point here before we switch topics on the demographics and patient profiles.  However, when you look at it in proportion by groups, higher income women terminate more pregnancies. So over that 200%, even though they have fewer unintended pregnancies, they terminate almost half of them. Women under the poverty line have more unintended pregnancies. They terminate about 38% of them. They deliver 60 unintended pregnancies per thousand women versus nine, just in that income jump. Again, why is that? Is it different in values of wanting to continue unintended pregnancies for moral reasons? Is it lack of access to getting to abortion care? Is it, there could be many factors, right? And again, there's no research that perfectly explains this. However, I think it's worthy of discussion and examination. So let's switch to the idea, let's go from epidemiology and all I did not know and I'm embarrassed to say now is the case to the concepts of law and ethics. Our country, it's interesting, there's such a slide between these categories. And when I teach on this topic, I really encourage my students to clarify, are you making an ethical argument or a legal argument or both, it's not that they're unrelated, right? But the constitutional law of, if you say I'm opposed to abortion, I think it's unethical. Okay, great. You still have to make a separate legal argument about it, right? And so I try to help at least for clarity and conversation separate those and then talk about how they do or do not overlap. And we seem to be used to this in other areas. The First Amendment, my right to practice my religion, if I tell you my religion is really so much better than your religion, first of all, that's a weird thing to say, but also no one suggests I'm saying your religion should be illegal, right? We understand there's room for this. But in abortion, we're a little confused about that. So let me do a quick review of the constitutional law behind abortion. Many of my students are surprised that as late as 1965, states had made it illegal to use any form of contraception, right? So there's no, that non-procreative sex is illegal between married people and unmarried people. And it's in the Griswold case in 1965 that the Supreme Court develops the privacy doctrine and says, you know, yeah, the contraception, that word's not in the constitution, but when you look at the Bill of Rights and multiple amendments and lots of case law, it's clear there's this realm of personal liberty in which the government cannot enter. And that the marital bedroom is one of those spaces. It's not up to the state whether your sex is procreative or not. That shouldn't be a matter of governmental concern. And think about the year here, the introduction of this radical new thing called the pill, that's woman-controlled, really brings this to the fore. In Eisenstadt, Massachusetts could have just said, like, okay, the jig is up, we're not gonna ban contraception, but they banned it just for single people. And Eisenstadt, that case said, well, it's for unmarried people too. And this is sort of the bumper sticker quote from Eisenstadt, that these cases, contraception cases are about being free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child. Now a year after Eisenstadt, we moved to Roe versus Wade. And the question in Roe is, does the presence of an embryo or fetus change that conclusion about the government's involvement in this individual decision to bear or beget a child? Well, the court starts out with talking about the moral personhood of embryos and fetuses and basically says that's not what we do. That's not what we're here to talk about. I wish the court had used the capital L in life because they're all well aware that biological life is certainly present in that one-celled entity that starts human development. But they're saying that there's no consensus on this in any field of thoughtful people. Why do you think we would be able to resolve it? That's really up to individual conscience. They don't use that word exactly, but that's the idea there. Now legal personhood, they say actually that's exactly what we're qualified to talk about. And what I think is so fascinating is Roe versus Wade is arguably a very original intent opinion. It's a very textualist opinion. And you see those juxtaposed as if those who say, well, the word abortion isn't in the Constitution. I mean, a lot of words are not in the Constitution. But what the Roe court did was really drill down and said, well, okay, the Constitution uses the word person 16 times. It doesn't define it, but it's impossible to use substitute embryo or fetus in any of those sentences and have them make any sense. Okay, so the framers couldn't have been talking about that. They looked at history and said, from the 17 to 1800s, abortion was not criminalized in the way it is now. So that wasn't part of the cultural milieu at the time. And they concluded the word person as used in the 14th Amendment does not include the unborn, right? They're just saying we're taking no position on the rightness or wrongness of doing this, but we're saying fetuses and embryos are not protected by the Constitution. And when you weigh that against the privacy interests of the individuals, couples, and families making these decisions, it's completely outweighed that they have this right to do it. In the case of 1992 that affirmed the core holding of Roe was phrased differently. Our obligation is to define the liberty of all not to mandate our moral code. Again, separating out this law and morality, saying some of the justices are very upset about this practice, totally opposed to it. However, that's a different decision. Casey also added what's called the undue burden standard, which I won't go into here, but really relaxed the standards for state regulation of abortion and allowed the flood of regulation that we see today. So it affirmed the core right, it affirmed the viability line that states can't ban abortion before viability, for them that it's up to doctors, not legislatures to decide when that is, but said states can do things like informed consent, scripts, waiting periods, that sort of thing. So that's the flood of regulations we see today. But this is my translation of the contraception and abortion cases. They concluded that governments can't force women to bear children against their will in the service of moral ideals of strangers, right? That these were gonna be individual decisions of conscience. And I wanna just take one step beyond contraception and abortion to just flag for you the gay rights cases and how they're constitutionally speaking tied together. So in 1986, there was a case that I and many others think is awful called Bowers versus Hardwick.  And in 1986, the court said, that's fine, that's not unconstitutional. In 2003, the court reversed itself and said, we got it wrong.  Really that case was about love and adult autonomy and dignity and identity.  However, they can't use the power of the state to enforce that even if they're in the majority, right? This is what the constitution is about, protecting unpopular lifestyles views, that sort of thing. And I just wanna point out for you they quote the abortion case. Our obligation is to define the liberty of all not to mandate our own moral code. So we are used to, okay, so if we pro-choice simply means you think that there's, you agree with the court's reasoning or you think they're even from a policy perspective if there were no constitutional right that abortion should be legal. Then you get into the conversation about is it an ethical act? And I think when I say no here, I'm just marking, I think many of us are familiar with the sort of the Catholic politician stance of I'm personally opposed to abortion. I think it's unethical, I wish no one would do it. However, I recognize it as a constitutional right and I support it as a constitutional right, right? And we're kind of familiar that sometimes people take that stance. What I have learned in my research and I'm just talking to people about abortion and I have to tell you it's hilarious when people say, what are you up to? What are you working on? And you say, I'm writing a book about abortion. The stories that they tell you at cookouts and cocktail parties is amazing. And then you learn to ask different questions. I have a colleague who describes himself as pro-life and I've taught with him for a long time. He's very strong in his Christian grounded beliefs about abortion.   Then we'd just be back to septic wards which is the wards we used to have the United States for people who had septicemia, blood infections from abortion that had gone wrong and unsafe abortion. And he said, no, we just be back to septic wards. I don't want abortion to be illegal. I want it to be unnecessary. And I thought, how dumb of me that I made this assumption that his box is lined up, right? I've also talked to people who were vociferously pro-choice who then surprised me by whispering, like, but I don't know if it's ethical because I had a baby and I had an abortion and now I think this and that, right? But there's room for that. Those who think abortion is unethical and want it to be illegal have to make an argument why the Constitution would protect fetuses when they are in conflict with perceived conflict with the adults who are protected by the Constitution, right? There's different legal argument to be made there. I also don't hear articulated as much as it could be or perhaps should be the ethics arguments about why abortion is either morally neutral. I think some people are comfortable articulating that. There are people who I call, I term abortion ambivalent. They're sort of like, I see good parts, bad parts, or but morally good. Those who say, I'm not troubled by the destruction of embryos. I think that's okay. And I think what abortion permits women is morally good. And so it's morally good to have it because they're afraid of being labeled pro-abortion.  Abortion, putting them together for me just made me confirm like, oh right, the right answer is pluralism. That we're gonna come to different conclusions on this and we can try to persuade one another but that that's not an area that the legislature should enter. It's also the case that it's not just whether it's about when and just to make sure we start with a data point, I was really interested to learn that 80% of all US abortions involve embryos. Anatomically, the line between an embryo and a fetus is day one of week 11 and that's last menstrual period. It's very confusing dating for non-doctors. So that means eight weeks of conception, typically, but we date from the last menstrual period because we don't know exactly when someone got pregnant. And that line is we call it a fetus when it has all the anatomical structures are present, just the basic organization, 10 fingers, 10 toes, something that looks like a face, right? So it's often described as the great US debate about the rights of fetuses, but 80% are embryos. Is that a distinction with a difference? I don't know, that's up to you. But the ethics of when often hinge on a biological developmental point. And again, I won't use our time to go through all of these though, if in the Q&A anyone wants to talk to them, I'm happy to. I wanna point out I have pain at 24 plus weeks. I just wanna say out loud, many of the statutes that are trying to pull the viability standard back hinge to pain and claim it happens at 20 weeks. The scientific consensus does not support that, supports the earliest of that. The capacity to actually perceive pain would be around 24 weeks potentially or later. There's some irony that if you really switched out of pain standard for a viability standard, you'd actually permit abortion later. David Boonen is the philosopher associated with number eight, organized cortical activity. He argues until you have the neurological structures to form a thought, that's what makes you part of the distinctive thing about homo sapiens. We could talk about this forever, right? I simply wanna flag that these arguments about when that are separate from whether and that's what we're seeing in the state legislatures. Now, there are a couple of things. They're called single intrinsic property. That's what philosophers call, right? This one thing happens and then the switch flips from ethical to unethical. The strength of them is they speak to what philosopher Maggie Little calls gradualism. That's just an intuition that like when you're building a house and they dig the basement, that's not a house. When they put up the studs, I don't know. First of all, I don't know, are those called studs? I think so, right? The boards, is that a house? Probably most of us would agree not yet. What about when you get the walls in? But we would agree that it gets houseier at some point like it doesn't have paint and wallpaper but it's got heat, doesn't need a doorbell. That's my house and if it burns down I've lost something of value, right? So these respond to our sort of collective moral intuition that things get more serious as pregnancy progresses. They also, one of their challenges is I think they really play into what Art Kaplan calls scientism. He's a bioethicist. Using science as a moral conclusion, like that's when fetuses can feel pain and then sitting down, right? You still have to argue what is it about pain and how is that different, say, in a fetus than an animal that feels pain but can be killed and eaten? Why wouldn't Anise Jill's, excuse me, pain control be the answer for that? I used to have a lot of conversation to have, right? And also notice that all those points have made no reference to the women in whom these embryos and fetuses live. And many feminists have critiqued this. I refer to them as jar theories because when I was incredibly pregnant, past my due date, I was trying to walk myself into labor as many women do, wandering around Chicago's Museum of Science and Industry and looking at their display of embryonic and fetal development in these jars with embryos and fetuses who had been lost to miscarriage or women who had died in accidents in the 30s and 40s. And I just thought as a very pregnant woman, where am I, right? And how different that exhibit would look with 32 bodies of women? Say they had all died and consented to have their bodies displayed with their uteruses open. So you could see that development, how that would look. And so I think we have this false difference, right? The idea that those who oppose abortion talk about morality and ethics and killing and those who support abortion rights are talking about policy and women's rights. And somehow we not ethics and we're missing each other. But there's also a reason that those who support abortion rights don't like getting into conversations about embryos and fetuses. It's not because they're afraid of them. It's because they feel like that the anti-abortion argument sometimes is hiding an anti-woman agenda and you don't wanna be learned into false arguments that are a waste of time. Like if at the end of the argument, the person is gonna say, well, women were made to have babies anyway. You're like, well, that was not what we were debating. I don't wanna have that conversation. And so I simply wanna highlight that the personhood of women is at stake in this conversation too in a way that we really say out loud. Now of course, women are not a monolithic group. So it's important to name that the personhood of women of African descent who were kidnapped and enslaved was denied to the United States from the beginning until 1865 and politically it's not that it was granted and everything was fine. We all know that, but just speaking legally. Many people have forgotten that married women were legally dead in the sense that they just went from their subsidiary of their father's identity to a subsidiary of their husband's identity couldn't own property in their own names. It wasn't until 74 to assure they could get credit cards in their own names without their father or husband signing. And this is part of the two spheres model. And this is a case that I love to hate. Ms. Myra Bradwell, I should say Mrs. because it's important to the case she was traded as a lawyer but she couldn't get a bar card. She couldn't get admitted to the bar to practice in Illinois because women weren't allowed to sign contracts that were legally binding. So she challenged that what you must do with clients to represent them as their lawyer. And the Supreme US Supreme Court affirmed the decision on administrative grounds but three judges joined an opinion which basically just screamed it's because she's a girl like they just couldn't hold on to this idea. The idea that women aren't supposed to work the domestic fear, mothers and wives. That's it, you don't get to be out there. We say we've come such a long way and we have but I just wanna point out to you then in 1961 even after a whole series of cases saying you can't have racially segregated juries a Florida statute that essentially that led to gender segregated juries. The Supreme court's like, yeah, but that's different because women are needed at home. So the two spheres philosophy is very, very still still there's strains of it that are very alive and well in the United States.  So we're not all the way there in terms of political representation, we could argue. And the first woman appointed to the Supreme court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, when she wrote Casey that case that affirmed Roe, she didn't adopt the gender equity argument made by scholars like Sylvia Law and future Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg by using an equal protection analysis. She stuck with the privacy analysis to affirm Roe but that opinion reads like a feminist manifesto in terms of how abortion has allowed women to participate in this other sphere, in this public sphere and that it's necessary to do so. And I'll throw you a curve ball here. I think many people are familiar with the Obergefell case which said that denying gay marriage was unconstitutional but here this is provocative language that it's stigmatizing to same-sex couples to demean them by saying they can't marry and this language at the end it would diminish their personhood to deny them the right to marry. This is an assertion that personhood is something that socially constructed throughout our life through the ways in which we interact with others. And I think that that's true when we think about the personhood of women in relationship to abortion care. And so I wanna close with one last point and I'm going to jump ahead in my slides if I may. I wanna speak very, very briefly to the concept of narrative in abortion care and storytelling in abortion care. And what I wanna do here is to think about these ordinary abortion stories and their power because note that when patients were polled about their reasons, no one asked them what do they think about the moral status of fetuses? Does that make sense? No one asked them that. I think the assumption was that they thought it was ethical to have an abortion because they're having an abortion and I think that's a fair assumption. So the benefits of reclaiming the ordinary is to think about why do so many women choose this and if we're assuming they're moral agents which we are, what's their reasoning process? That that just opens the ethics discussion in a different way. But it also contributes to the narratives discussion and it raises this issue of master plots and counter narratives. So I just wanna offer one. I go through several of these in the book. The idea that I think most of you have heard this idea that abortion is a difficult decision. Well, in the last 10 years there's just been this amazing body of social science research around abortion that has just explored many of these bits of conventional wisdom. This is a very large study that followed abortion patients before they got an abortion for five years and included some that were turned away from the clinic because they were too far along to see what those different trajectories were like. And I just think it's fascinating that 46% if you add up these numbers do not report that their abortion decision was difficult, right? So when you look at the data it's called a counter narrative. The idea that sometimes abortion decisions are easy. I think we put forward this to the difficulty equals like moral seriousness as opposed to people who are just very confident like a mother. Anyone would naturally say you weren't morally serious. They would say you were confident that you had thought through your values beforehand. You knew who you were and what you wanted to do even when you received surprising news, right? But we don't have that model for people ending pregnancies. It's also the case in, we hear about the concept of abortion regret which is really a subplot of the difficult decision argument. The idea it's so difficult that even if you feel really confident and clear you might feel differently later. And so I just wanna point out that what I realized in this work was that we've been told these collective stories and they purport to be factual, right? Abortion is always difficult. Some women regret it. And it's really a substitution for a philosophical position or an argument that it should always be difficult. You should regret it. And that's something we can debate, a position versus a story which you cannot contest, right? So in my program, we do think a lot about the medical humanities and how that can give us a richer and robust ethics conversation. This is one of my favorite pieces of political art. The shift between immoral, I'm moral and the way this is stamped on her back from someone who couldn't be her, right? So what do we have consensus on? I interpret our 45 years plus debate about abortion where we have not reached consensus as a different type of consensus that we're never going to agree. And therefore this is the kind of topic like the freedom of religion where it is not appropriate for governmental imposition or interference that this is an issue left for pluralistic society for individuals and their clinicians when it's relevant to come together and work out. So I'm not afraid of debating abortion but I don't see it's a problem that we have to resolve. It's a tension that we have to learn to live with in a much healthier way. And lastly, Roe versus Wade is very much under threat. It could be reversed or gutted in the very near future. And this is a map by an advocacy group of what that might look like in terms of states where state laws will be protective and they will be challenged. And so I just wanna say silence on abortion is a luxury you no longer have. I hope my book makes the prospect of talking about abortion a little more palatable and hopefully maybe even affirmatively welcome because I know every single person in this audience has so much to say. I can't wait to hear from you in the Q and A and it's been a pleasure talking with you. Take care. All right, thank you so much Katie for such a wonderful and profound talk. Let me, we have a lot of interesting questions here in the Q and A. Let me start with this one. Many societies have practiced infanticide believing that born children have no status as persons. If you were to argue on the level of ethics would you reject this view and on what grounds? So the question, the statement is many societies have practiced infanticide on the grounds that the infant is not a person. Is that what they said? Have no status as persons.  And as you were saying that the constitution doesn't grant a fetus status as a person. So I suppose what the question is asking here is why, what is the act of birth? What difference does the act of birth make? Great, so I mean, it is a true historical fact that many societies practiced infanticide and I think that speaks to as I say in my book that I opened it with my experience at the Foundling Wheel in Italy and Rome where the pope, the first sort of adoption idea strangers would raise your baby because people in the area were throwing their infants into the river. The having unwanted pregnancies is not a new issue as this questioner is pointing out. I think abortion is an incalculably more humane response than infanticide. I wouldn't equate the two at all. And I do think that the birth and separation of an infant is of tremendous moral significance. The individuation in the world is enormous. I feel like it's hard to overstate for me. So I do think those practices are radically different and I think from a cultural and historical response I think there is something interesting about thinking about them together. I think abortion is a medical technology that has allowed us to avoid infanticide. So that would be another reason one might term it a moral good. All right, early on in the talk you had a two by two table constitutional versus ethical. So this, I believe this comment relates to that about the difference between ethics and law in medical ethics bodily autonomy is a central pillar. In the case of pregnancy, this means a woman's body is an issue of autonomy. This is not capital letters, not a couple's issue. Aside from patient safety why would the legislature or government be allowed to insert itself into discussions between women and physicians? We need a confidentiality mantle to keep the courts out of these discussions analogous to the lawyer client privilege. Interesting, great. So I appreciate this writers when they and I like the capital NOT this is not a couple's issue, right? But that's like saying an oncology patient this is a cancer as an individual issue like of course it is between you and your doctor but social scientists will tell us many people with cancer choose to involve their spouses and their children in their thought process, their support, their decision making and take them into account in their decision making. And so what I was trying to clarify and I'm, excuse me, what I was trying to make clear and I'm so glad you've said this because obviously I did so in completely is that legally and ethically it is absolutely in terms of medical ethics and patient doctor decision making absolutely an individual issue. And politically, socially, we can see data that it is a couple's issue and a family issue. And those are intention, right? And what they can be misappropriated one way or the other. So I don't want to misappropriate them I'm just naming them and to think about them in more rich and robust ways. However, when you say why would there be any governmental regulation? The Supreme Court's answer is there's a governmental interest if the government chooses to exercise it in human life from conception on. I disagree with that analysis. Interest for what? Taxpayers, soldiers. I mean, there's no explanation or defense of this if it's not a person, right? What would the governmental interest be? So I'm with you there to being confused and thinking there should be more privacy in that relationship. All right, another question. Thank you so much, Katie. Why do you think pro-choice advocacy organizations continue to use the quote unquote difficult cases narratives rather than arguing that abortion is common, safe and unremarkable? Well, whoever this writer is, email me and let's brainstorm that for an hour or so. So I said as a lawyer, when you've got three minutes and you want to present the case that everyone can agree on, right? Or the most people can see it right away. And the medical cases are so sad, but they do play into gender narratives. Those are people who wanted to become pregnant. So they were intending or accepting of procreative sex. They wanted to become mothers.  And it was something so sad that they could no longer become mothers who used sex in a procreative way. And so they really capture a lot of people. They don't challenge the gender and sexual norms that the abortion right really does challenge. And so to say it's common, it's safe, people, Americans apparently love it when you look at the numbers, that pushes back against the gender norms and it's this Trojan horse piece. My only bit of like glass half full on the recent push for abortion restrictions is stigmatizers swing into action when what they wanted to stigmatize wasn't being done by laws and social norms already. And so the women's rights revolution has been so successful in the gay rights revolution that those who want that traditional two-spheres philosophy to be the dominant model, they're right to be panicked. They're right to go into social enforcement mode because they're losing, right? So that's where all that energy comes from. But I think in the pro-choice narratives, I mean, oh, Bersheffel, the named plaintiff, his would-be husband was dead, right? Like you didn't have to make the court even picture them kissing, right? He just wanted to be on the death certificate and have the benefits of being a widow. Like they took the most sexually neutral couple you could find, right? Cause one was not living. So we do that in litigation all the time. And it's often a winning strategy. It's the reason why. All right, here's a comment that I think plays on how we use slogans. Do you see an ethical difference in the right to die versus the right to life? The right to die and the right to life. Well, I mean, I do, so it depends if that person is targeting their thoughts when they say right to life to the existence of the embryo or fetus or to the adult woman in whom it lives, right? I do see an analogy in the bodily autonomy rights of adults with capacity in the right to terminate or carry a pregnancy and the right to access hospice care or physician assisted dying. I do think there's a conceptual link there. The difference is the growing of a potential not another person. So it's not a perfect analogy, right? But I do think there is some relevance to those conversations. Yes, okay. Here's a going back to more of the beginning of your talk where you were talking about the statistics that maybe the impact of the Hyde Amendment upon the frequency of abortions as well as the comment that white women often do not report their abortions. And so this may be massively under reported how many white women have abortions. Fantastic, okay, so two pieces. The Hyde Amendment for those who don't know is a federal writer that came in, I think around 1977, post-Rowe, the idea that the federal Medicaid program will not pay for any abortion, including those that threaten pregnancies that threaten a woman's health. Like you're gonna lose a kidney too bad if Medicaid's your insurance, you're not covered. And when you look at that percentage of women in poverty who are the patients, think about how dramatically that impacts them. In my state, the argument that won the day is this is gender discrimination. Medicaid covers all procedures for men, but doesn't cover a procedure that one in four women will need. And that number might be higher in impoverished women. That's gender discrimination. We cover childbirth, we cover contraception. States shouldn't have anything to do with it, right? So 16 states have state covered, Medicaid coverage. The effort to repeal the Hyde Amendment, which is very live, is about that sort of gender equity and dignity point. It's also the case that poor women delay their abortions to find the time to raise the money. The average first trimester abortion costs $500. And to get that cash out of pocket for someone who can barely pay rent and feed their children, it delays the procedure. So again, people who are on a comfortable or less comfortable with abortion in the second trimester versus the first, repealing the Hyde Amendment and having insurance coverage is there's great data that that would push the numbers, the dates lower for earlier abortion. There was a second piece to that question. About white women not reporting. Oh, about under-reporting. That's a really interesting hypothesis, but these numbers come from the Gutmacher Institute and they don't get them directly from patients, they get them from clinic data. And so I actually have a pretty high level of trust in these numbers because the Gutmacher numbers are higher than CDC numbers, but CDC numbers are clinic self-report and many states don't even report at all. Whereas Gutmacher has very good relationships and is perceived as neutral by abortion clinics and hospitals that provide abortion. And when they don't respond to the surveys, Gutmacher follows up like I think it's four to seven times. So they have a very low non-response rate. So your hypothesis is valid. Given what I know about Gutmacher statistics, I don't think it accounts. I think the poverty overlap is probably a stronger explanation. All right, well, let's close with a comment from one of an experienced bioethicist. This was the best presentation on this topic I've heard. Thank you. I don't think we could summarize it any better than that. So thank you, Katie. And for all of you in closing, our next one will be April 29th. Ruha Benjamin will be talking about her book, Race After Technology, Abolitionist Tools for the New Gym Code, C-O-D-E. So I hope to see you then. Thanks again, Katie. Thank you. And I'm gonna look at the chat before we close and go speak with your students. I'll just make sure. Okay, that's good. I see rich comments here.


Hey, this is Brett and this 2020 GMC Sierra 2500 Crew Cab Short Box 84 is stock number 13980Z. I'm here at Summit Automotive in Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, you're new and used heavy-duty truck. Headquarters this 2020 GMC Sierra 2500 has the 6.6-liter Duramax diesel engine. It's paired up with the Allison heavy-duty 10-speed automatic transmission, puts out 445 horsepower. This truck has been fully safety and inspected by our service shop per the state of Wisconsin inspection process, has a fresh oil and filter change, all the fluids have been checked and topped off, and this truck is 100% ready to go. I'm going to go all the way around in this video. Inside, start it up, take a look underneath, take a look under the hood, give you the most accurate representation that I can of the vehicle. I'm here at White Clear Coats Color, I shoot all my videos in 4K, and if you like the video you can subscribe to my YouTube channel which is youtube.com slash Summit Auto, click the bell notifications, you'll get updates on the videos I do each and every day as well as having access to one of the largest catalogs of vehicle and especially truck walk-arounds on YouTube. This one comes with the 18-inch painted and polished aluminum wheels, and it has some really nice BF Goodrich All-Terrain TA KO2 tires. These are LT27570R18s, I would say they have probably 80-90% of the tread left on them. Frame and body is in pretty nice shape, does have the Z71 shocks there, this is a clean title history, clean car facts out of Illinois and Indiana it was previously owned in. Front fender is in great shape, has the LED headlamps, LED running lights, and the LED fog lamps. Front bumper is in pretty nice shape, I didn't see any major dents on there, looks pretty good, a couple little touch-up spots but nothing too bad, you get the grayish chrome looking grille, that looks really good, and you get the true cowl induction hood, I'll show you how that hood works in just a little bit, so stay tuned for that. Get the clearance lights up top, passenger side, front fender is in nice shape, didn't see any dents on there, and the passenger side front wheel, no major scuffs or scrapes. As you go down this side of this 2020 GMC Sierra 2500, take note of how clean that body is, how reflective and mirror-like that paint is, I take these HD videos so if you're far away or even if you're close by and you just cannot make the trip down, but you're still interested in purchasing the truck, you can see the truck, hear the truck, and have confidence in the vehicle that you're looking at, before you even get here, so when you do get here, there's absolutely no surprises, you can make a smart buying decision from wherever you're at, or just the decision to come take a look at the vehicle, and if this video helps you make that decision, let your salesmen know that you saw the video that was helpful, and that Brett sent you back wheels in excellent shape as well, and the back tires are just as new as the front tires, it does have the felt wheel well liners, which helps keep your frame and underbody looking good, has all the remaining factory exhaust, and it looks really good underneath here. Lower rockers and cab corners look really good as well, and it does come with a nice set of Tiger step bars. Get the side box steps, passenger side box at Insini Major Denser dings on there, LED tail lamps, rear bumper is in really nice condition in Insini Denser dings, and there it does have the rear bumper steps, full towing package, which includes receiver hitch four pin and seven pin wiring, the tailgate is in pretty nice shape as well, it does have the multi pro tailgate, so you can put the whole tailgate down like that, it has the shock down assist, so it's never gonna slam on you, and then you get the tailgate step assist, so that goes down like that, and then this goes down like so, to get into that bed, there is a handle right there as well. This one does come with a spray and bed liner, that's a really nice bed liner, and LED bed lights, you also get 120 volt 400 watt plug-in back here, and to get this tailgate up you just gotta close that, and it all closes at the same time, and that shuts nice and solidly. Going down the driver side just as clean as that passenger side at Insini Major Denser dings on the box, and for full disclosure this back wheel is in excellent shape as well, no scuffs or scrapes. Down the rest of this side of the truck doors and cab all look really good, does have the telescopic tow mirrors, they're heated LED side lights and directional signals in them.  These mirrors do power telescope out and in, I always like showing both sides so you know that both sides are working properly, and they do power fold in, out, in, and out.  There are your heated seat buttons, USB-C, USB and a 12-volt power point, you get child safety locks on the back doors, and the inside and bottoms of the doors all look really good. Before we hop inside I'll show you the VIN sticker, as well as the trailering information sticker, GM's nice enough to give you that, and then the tire and loading information sticker. Hop inside, check out the miles, the radio, and everything that this truck has to offer on the interior. Alright, you can see this one has 56,241 miles, you get a compass display on that digital instrument cluster, comes with the heated leather-wrapped steering wheel, Bluetooth and information center controls on the right, cruise controls and heated steering controls on the left, audio controls on the back of the steering wheel, there's your shifter for that 10-speed Allison heavy-duty transmission. This one does have the GMC infotainment system, you get AM, FM and Sirius XM radio capabilities on there. This one also has the factory navigation system, and there is Highway 41, so you can see that is working nicely, and then you get your home screen here, Pandora, all your different apps, Apple CarPlay, Android Auto where you can project your cell phone to the screen, and then you have your camera right here, there's your backup cam, and you can zoom in on that receiver hitch to get hooked up to your boat camper or trailer the first time, every time's a lot of great stuff you can do with that radio. Down here your climate controls and your dual climate controls, heated and cooled seat buttons, factory exhaust brake, power drop-down tailgate hazard lights, stability control, that's for your plug-in in the bed of the truck, downhill assist control, factory brake controller, USB, USB-C, 12 volt power point, and your 120 volt, 150 watt plug-in keyless entry with remote start, power drop-down tailgate, and there is your wireless cell phone charge pad. Passengers side dual glove boxes, passengers side format and seat are in excellent condition as well. You get the AT4 stitched into the headrest, which looks really good, and the headliners in great shape. This one does have the power sunroof, map lights, sunroof and power sign rear window controls, on-star and SOS buttons, and home link buttons for your garage door security systems and lighting systems. We'll start it up, take a look under the hood. Starts right up, no check engine lights or anything like that. I would personally like to thank you for checking out the video today, and hopefully from this HD video you've been able to verify the quality condition options and of course cleanliness of this truck all the way around inside and out. There are those LED side lights. You get the lights in the fenders as well. LED headlamps, LED running lights, and LED fog lamps. All look really good, red tow hooks on there as well. And under the hood we have the 6.6 liter Duramax diesel engine, engine base. Very clean runs, very smooth. Once again this truck has been fully safe and inspected by our service shop as a fresh oil and filter change. All the fluids have been checked and topped off.  It has newer tires, BF Goodrich, and then you get the cold air intake there. It comes down to that tube right into the air intake. There's the emissions sticker and this truck is 100% ready to go. And I would highly recommend it from a quality and conditions standpoint considering the age of miles on it. And to see more pictures of this truck or one of our 550 new and used cars, trucks, SCDs, minivans, wranglers, halftones, three-quarter tons, one tons, we name it. We got to go to that website right there summitauto.com. Full pictures and descriptions of every single vehicle all at summitauto.com. And if you'd like to check out more HD videos you can go to youtube.com slash summit auto-click the bell notifications. You'll get updates in the videos I do each and every day as well as having access to one of the largest catalogs of vehicle and truck walk-arounds on YouTube. 8,000 videos and counting. In fact in a second you will see a link to subscribe to my YouTube channel in the upper left. A link to more GMC Sierra 2500 truck videos like this one in the upper right. A link to this vehicle on our website in the lower left. And a link to one of our latest YouTube videos in the lower right. Click those, check us out. We're super excited to help you with this Ultra Clean 2020 GMC Sierra 2500 AT4 HD in Summit White Querco. Thanks again for checking out the video. Remember to like, subscribe, and share on the YouTube channel. I really appreciate it. Thanks again.