Play Book Tag discussion
2016-19 Activities & Challenges
>
Buddy Read: Red Clocks by Leni Zumas *SPOILERS ALLOWED*


Lol!!! Looks like the star ratings on this are pretty polarized. Some who LOVE it, some who strongly dislike. I often disagree with Emily May also. I try my darndest to not let reviews sway my perceptions and views.

I am going to listen to it! I probably won't start it for a couple of weeks though.


I am going to listen to it! I probably won't start ..."
Looking at the first few chapters I don’t see how this one would work well in audio.


I started in it book form and while I'm not an audio person so probably not qualified to say, I would read this one personally. It uses very few names, and I think that lends itself a lot better to reading. It's definitely not a traditional linear writing style either.
All that said, so far I am wowed (only 10% of the way in).

So, I am squeezing in a quick chick lit before I move on to Red Clocks.
Susie, how are you finding the audio?


This subject is totally and completely terrifying. That is all I'm going to say.
I started the regular version (not audio) last night. Only made it about 20 pages before falling asleep, but it so far is very easy to read. Looking forward to getting into it!


I like getting the perspective of someone in another country on this. I think most people in the U.S. know what Roe v. Wade is about and I forget it isn't common knowledge elsewhere.
I started the book last night and made it about 40 pages in.

Without getting into a political discussion, but really more just about the facts.....
I am actually very interested now, Susie, what is the legal status of abortions in Australia? Do we have members from other countries? If so, what is the legal status of abortions in your country?
In the US, the US Supreme Court has held that a woman has a right to choose an abortion because it falls under the umbrella of the Right to Privacy (which is a really amorphous umbrella that a lot of personal choice issues fall under). Roe v. Wade is the court case that established that back in 1973.
However, other court cases have held that the government can place reasonable restrictions on that right (that is a Supreme Court case called Casey v. Planned Parenthood from 1992). In general, the woman has the right to an abortion up until the "point of viability" (which happens to be more and more contentious as science advances, but in general this typically is the end of the first trimester) and the government has the right to restrict or prohibit abortions after that point, but there must always be an exception for emergencies and for the health of the mother. Stenberg v. Carhart in 2000 established the health exception part.
Another area with a lot of legal action is the de facto prohibition of abortions by regulating the clinics/doctors/procedures to the point that it restricts access to the point of it being unreasonable. An example of this was in Texas, where a state law mandated extra standards at abortion clinics beyond what is medically necessary that would have resulted in only 9 clinics being open in the whole state (Texas is big, for our out-of-USers). That is Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt in 2016, but there have been many other cases that deal with other aspects of access.
Justice Kennedy has been an unexpected vote to protect the right to choose since being nominated to the court by a Republican president (for our non-USers, a very general statement is that R politicians tend to oppose access to abortions while D politicians tend to support it). As many of you know, President Trump is a republican and has been very vocal about nominating a candidate who will overturn Roe v. Wade, thereby making abortions illegal in this country again.
Just a little overview for our nonUS friends as you dive into this book. And an explanation of why this seemingly dystopian novel is very timely—and hard to read for some of us who support the right to choose.

Just to chime another recent incident that has gotten quite a bit of international coverage, recently an Arizona pharmacist was LEGALLY ABLE to deny a patient their doctor-prescribed miscarriage-inducing medication after her fetus had stopped developing. This was because the pharmacist had a "moral objection" to this perspiration. She has spoken out at the loss of control over her body this situation has given her, the emotional roller coaster, and the EXTREMELY poorly way the company and it's employee handled it.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...
This brings so many questions to light. Primarily- whose right it is it to deny/approve what anyone does with their bodies? Where is the line of privacy drawn?

Here in Australia abortion is legal in all states, although some states still have restrictions. The restrictions are not too severe and exemptions are granted in most cases, eg rape, foetal defects, mental health, economic factors etc.
Certain Liberal Party leaders (the Liberal Party are our conservative political party - confusing) and independents have attempted to introduce more harsh restrictions, and did stall the sale of RU-486 until 2006. Thank the stars that the majority of the senate have their heads screwed on correctly and a motion that was moved last year to ban late term abortions was overwhelmingly voted down.
In Victoria, my home state, it has recently been made illegal to stage protests or harass people within 150m of abortion clinics. I have through my career as a social worker on occasion taken clients to clinics, and to have jars containing fake babies shoved in your face when you are going through the abortion process is just abysmal. I was very happy with this ruling.

We also have the minimum distance requirement, though I cannot think what it is off the top of my head, but probably close to yours.
I can only imagine how difficult it was to escort those women to the clinics, even without people outside harassing them.


They are controversial here are well. Everything that touches the topic of women’s health tends to be controversial!


Just to chime anoth..."
As a pharmacist, let me explain the laws, at least in the states I’m licensed in. These tend to be the same or similar in all states.
In short, a pharmacist has the right to refuse to dispense a prescription he is morally opposed to. HOWEVER, the pharmacist is required to find another pharmacist, either a coworker or another pharmacy, that will fill the prescription. What this pharmacist did was reprehensible, and illegal.
As a company, Walgreens tends to have a hard time retaining pharmacists, thereby getting a larger proportion of new grads and those who have trouble with rules. I would guess that this pharmacist’s religious beliefs had nothing to do with his actions. He’s just a jerk.
On top of that, Plan B (aka RU 486) is over the counter. So he really had no reason to be such a tool.


From a personal standpoint I have so much sympathy for the Biographer. My sister struggled through three rounds of invitro fertilization, finally resulting in an unsuccessful ectoptic pregnancy. Then three horrible and unsuccessful adoption incidents, one where the mother changed her mind after my sister had received the baby. I know how sad it is to want a baby so badly and see how the timing makes the Biographer's quest even more important.

Recent legal challenges have been made to the law. Recently a very public case involving a 12 year-old who was repeatedly raped by her father was all over the news. Her mother and family wanted to terminate the pregnancy. The child was suicidal and yet being forced to give birth to her father's child. Other high profile cases have centered around women who have been forced to carry fetuses with severe defects who sued the government for extreme emotional distress. I'm not sure what the outcome was for those cases.
Costa Rica also bans IVF. So we're pretty much like this book.
I think it's all disgraceful. On a personal note, before I had my daughter I had a previous pregnancy. I had some difficulties with my pregnancy and so was being monitored a lot early on. At the 12 week check up the ultrasound showed no heartbeat. I had the choice to get the D&C procedure or simply wait and see if my body did the job for me. I got the D&C done because I couldn't fathom the idea of carrying around a dead fetus around for what could have been weeks. It was very upsetting. If I had been in Costa Rica, I would not have been allowed to get the D&C.

I am so sorry to hear that, Jen. That is a heartbreaking situation to be in and then if you would have been someplace without the option of a D&C it would have just added even more distress and anxiety to a situation that already had more than enough of both.

Oliver, how awful for your sister. How long had she had the baby for when the birth mother changed her mind? That must have been very traumatic for her.
Books mentioned in this topic
The Scarlet Letter (other topics)The Waves (other topics)
To the Lighthouse (other topics)
Mudbound (other topics)
When She Woke (other topics)
More...
The people I have so far are:
Nicole R (me!)
Susie
Nicole D
Rachel N
KateNZ
Jen
Chili
sushicat
Anita
Joi
Olivermangus
Jason (maybe?)
Kelly
If other people chime in, then I can add you to this list so that it makes for easy reporting for the Decathlon Challenge.
Looking forward to diving in!