# data[].attributes.body
This article get psychological and talks about happiness and hope.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
NEW YORK TIMES MAGAZINE
Sept. 7, 2003, pp. 44+

"Copyright 2003, Jon Gertner. From THE NEW YORK TIMES MAGAZINE. Distributed by New York Special Features/Syndication Sales."

Researchers in the burgeoning field of 'affective forecasting' are finding that when it comes to personal satisfaction in life, you can't really know what you want.

By Jon Gertner

If Daniel Gilbert is right, then you are wrong. That is to say, if Daniel Gilbert is right, then you are wrong to believe that a new car will make you as happy as you imagine. You are wrong to believe that a new kitchen will make you happy for as long as you imagine. You are wrong to think that you will be more unhappy with a big single setback (a broken wrist, a broken heart) than with a lesser chronic one (a trick knee, a tense marriage). You are wrong to assume that job failure will be crushing. You are wrong to expect that a death in the family will leave you bereft for year upon year, forever and ever. You are even wrong to reckon that a cheeseburger you order in a restaurant--this week, next week, a year from now, it doesn't really matter when--will definitely hit the spot. That's because when it comes to predicting exactly how you will feel in the future, you are most likely wrong.

A professor in Harvard's department of psychology, Gilbert likes to tell people that he studies happiness. But it would be more precise to say that Gilbert--along with the psychologist Tim Wilson of the University of Virginia, the economist George Loewenstein of Carnegie-Mellon and the psychologist (and Nobel laureate in economics) Daniel Kahneman of Princeton--has taken the lead in studying a specific type of emotional and behavioral prediction. In the past few years, these four men have begun to question the decision-making process that shapes our sense of well-being: how do we predict what will make us happy or unhappy--and then how do we feel after the actual experience? For example, how do we suppose we'll feel if our favorite college football team wins or loses, and then how do we really feel a few days after the game? How do we predict we'll feel about purchasing jewelry, having children, buying a big house or being rich? And then how do we regard the outcomes? According to this small corps of academics, almost all actions--the decision to buy jewelry, have kids, buy the big house or work exhaustively for a fatter paycheck--are based on our predictions of the emotional consequences of these events.

Until recently, this was uncharted territory. How we forecast our feelings, and whether those predictions match our future emotional states, had never been the stuff of laboratory research. But in scores of experiments, Gilbert, Wilson, Kahneman and Loewenstein have made a slew of observations and conclusions that undermine a number of fundamental assumptions: namely, that we humans understand what we want and are adept at improving our well-being--that we are good at maximizing our utility, in the jargon of traditional economics. Further, their work on prediction raises some unsettling and somewhat more personal questions. To understand affective forecasting, as Gilbert has termed these studies, is to wonder if everything you have ever thought about life choices, and about happiness, has been at the least somewhat naive and, at worst, greatly mistaken.

The problem, as Gilbert and company have come to discover, is that we falter when it comes to imagining how we will feel about something in the future. It isn't that we get the big things wrong. We know we will experience visits to Le Cirque and to the periodontist differently; we can accurately predict that we'd rather be stuck in Montauk than in a Midtown elevator. What Gilbert has found, however, is that we overestimate the intensity and the duration of our emotional reactions--our "affect"--to future events. In other words, we might believe that a new BMW will make life perfect. But it will almost certainly be less exciting than we anticipated; nor will it excite us for as long as predicted. The vast majority of Gilbert's test participants through the years have consistently made just these sorts of errors both in the laboratory and in real-life situations. And whether Gilbert's subjects were trying to predict how they would feel in the future about a plate of spaghetti with meat sauce, the defeat of a preferred political candidate or romantic rejection seemed not to matter. On average, bad events proved less intense and more transient than test participants predicted. Good events proved less intense and briefer as well. Gilbert and his collaborator Tim Wilson call the gap between what we predict and what we ultimately experience the "impact bias"--"impact" meaning the errors we make in estimating both the intensity and duration of our emotions and "bias" our tendency to err. The phrase characterizes how we experience the dimming excitement over not just a BMW but also over any object or event that we presume will make us happy. Would a 20 percent raise or winning the lottery result in a contented life? You may predict it will, but almost surely it won't turn out that way. And a new plasma television? You may have high hopes, but the impact bias suggests that it will almost certainly be less cool, and in a shorter time, than you imagine. Worse, Gilbert has noted that these mistakes of expectation can lead directly to mistakes in choosing what we think will give us pleasure. He calls this "miswanting."

"The average person says, 'I know I'll be happier with a Porsche than a Chevy,' " Gilbert explains. " 'Or with Linda rather than Rosalyn. Or as a doctor rather than as a plumber.' That seems very clear to people. The problem is, I can't get into medical school or afford the Porsche. So for the average person, the obstacle between them and happiness is actually getting the futures that they desire. But what our research shows--not just ours, but Loewenstein's and Kahneman's--is that the real problem is figuring out which of those futures is going to have the high payoff and is really going to make you happy.

"You know, the Stones said, 'You can't always get what you want,' " Gilbert adds. "I don't think that's the problem. The problem is you can't always know what you want."

Gilbert's papers on affective forecasting began to appear in the late 1990's, but the idea to study happiness and emotional prediction actually came to him on a sunny afternoon in October 1992, just as he and his friend Jonathan Jay Koehler sat down for lunch outside the psychology building at the University of Texas at Austin, where both men were teaching at the time. Gilbert was uninspired about his studies and says he felt despair about his failing marriage. And as he launched into a discussion of his personal life, he swerved to ask why economists focus on the financial aspects of decision making rather than the emotional ones. Koehler recalls, "Gilbert said something like: 'It all seems so small. It isn't really about money; it's about happiness. Isn't that what everybody wants to know when we make a decision?' " For a moment, Gilbert forgot his troubles, and two more questions came to him. Do we even know what makes us happy? And if it's difficult to figure out what makes us happy in the moment, how can we predict what will make us happy in the future?

In the early 1990's, for an up-and-coming psychology professor like Gilbert to switch his field of inquiry from how we perceive one another to happiness, as he did that day, was just a hairsbreadth short of bizarre. But Gilbert has always liked questions that lead him somewhere new. Now 45, Gilbert dropped out of high school at 15, hooking into what he calls "the tail end of the hippie movement" and hitchhiking aimlessly from town to town with his guitar. He met his wife on the road; she was hitching in the other direction. They married at 17, had a son at 18 and settled down in Denver. "I pulled weeds, I sold rebar, I sold carpet, I installed carpet, I spent a lot of time as a phone solicitor," he recalls. During this period he spent several years turning out science-fiction stories for magazines like Amazing Stories. Thus, in addition to being "one of the most gifted social psychologists of our age," as the psychology writer and professor David G. Myers describes him to me, Gilbert is the author of "The Essence of Grunk," a story about an encounter with a creature made of egg salad that jets around the galaxy in a rocket-powered refrigerator.

Psychology was a matter of happenstance. In the midst of his sci-fi career, Gilbert tried to sign up for a writing course at the local community college, but the class was full; he figured that psych, still accepting registrants, would help him with character development in his fiction. It led instead to an undergraduate degree at the University of Colorado at Denver, then a Ph.D. at Princeton, then an appointment at the University of Texas, then the appointment at Harvard. "People ask why I study happiness," Gilbert says, "and I say, 'Why study anything else?' It's the holy grail. We're studying the thing that all human action is directed toward."

One experiment of Gilbert's had students in a photography class at Harvard choose two favorite pictures from among those they had just taken and then relinquish one to the teacher. Some students were told their choices were permanent; others were told they could exchange their prints after several days. As it turned out, those who had time to change their minds were less pleased with their decisions than those whose choices were irrevocable.

Much of Gilbert's research is in this vein. Another recent study asked whether transit riders in Boston who narrowly missed their trains experienced the self-blame that people tend to predict they'll feel in this situation. (They did not.) And a paper waiting to be published, "The Peculiar Longevity of Things Not So Bad," examines why we expect that bigger problems will always dwarf minor annoyances. "When really bad things happen to us, we defend against them," Gilbert explains. "People, of course, predict the exact opposite. If you ask, 'What would you rather have, a broken leg or a trick knee?' they'd probably say, 'Trick knee.' And yet, if your goal is to accumulate maximum happiness over your lifetime, you just made the wrong choice. A trick knee is a bad thing to have."

All of these studies establish the links between prediction, decision making and well-being. The photography experiment challenges our common assumption that we would be happier with the option to change our minds when in fact we're happier with closure. The transit experiment demonstrates that we tend to err in estimating our regret over missed opportunities. The "things not so bad" work shows our failure to imagine how grievously irritations compromise our satisfaction. Our emotional defenses snap into action when it comes to a divorce or a disease but not for lesser problems. We fix the leaky roof on our house, but over the long haul, the broken screen door we never mend adds up to more frustration.

Gilbert does not believe all forecasting mistakes lead to similar results; a death in the family, a new gym membership and a new husband are not the same, but in how they affect our well-being they are similar. "Our research simply says that whether it's the thing that matters or the thing that doesn't, both of them matter less than you think they will," he says. "Things that happen to you or that you buy or own--as much as you think they make a difference to your happiness, you're wrong by a certain amount. You're overestimating how much of a difference they make. None of them make the difference you think. And that's true of positive and negative events."

Much of the work of Kahneman, Loewenstein, Gilbert and Wilson takes its cue from the concept of adaptation, a term psychologists have used since at least the 1950's to refer to how we acclimate to changing circumstances. George Loewenstein sums up this human capacity as follows: "Happiness is a signal that our brains use to motivate us to do certain things. And in the same way that our eye adapts to different levels of illumination, we're designed to kind of go back to the happiness set point. Our brains are not trying to be happy. Our brains are trying to regulate us." In this respect, the tendency toward adaptation suggests why the impact bias is so pervasive. As Tim Wilson says: "We don't realize how quickly we will adapt to a pleasurable event and make it the backdrop of our lives. When any event occurs to us, we make it ordinary. And through becoming ordinary, we lose our pleasure."

It is easy to overlook something new and crucial in what Wilson is saying. Not that we invariably lose interest in bright and shiny things over time--this is a long-known trait--but that we're generally unable to recognize that we adapt to new circumstances and therefore fail to incorporate this fact into our decisions. So, yes, we will adapt to the BMW and the plasma TV, since we adapt to virtually everything. But Wilson and Gilbert and others have shown that we seem unable to predict that we will adapt. Thus, when we find the pleasure derived from a thing diminishing, we move on to the next thing or event and almost certainly make another error of prediction, and then another, ad infinitum.

As Gilbert points out, this glitch is also significant when it comes to negative events like losing a job or the death of someone we love, in response to which we project a permanently inconsolable future. "The thing I'm most interested in, that I've spent the most time studying, is our failure to recognize how powerful psychological defenses are once they're activated," Gilbert says. "We've used the metaphor of the 'psychological immune system'--it's just a metaphor, but not a bad one for that system of defenses that helps you feel better when bad things happen. Observers of the human condition since Aristotle have known that people have these defenses. Freud spent his life, and his daughter Anna spent her life, worrying about these defenses. What's surprising is that people don't seem to recognize that they have these defenses, and that these defenses will be triggered by negative events." During the course of my interviews with Gilbert, a close friend of his died. "I am like everyone in thinking, I'll never get over this and life will never be good again," he wrote to me in an e-mail message as he planned a trip to Texas for the funeral. "But because of my work, there is always a voice in the back of my head--a voice that wears a lab coat and has a lot of data tucked under its arm--that says, 'Yes, you will, and yes, it will.' And I know that voice is right."

Still, the argument that we imperfectly imagine what we want and how we will cope is nevertheless disorienting. On the one hand, it can cast a shadow of regret on some life decisions. Why did I decide that working 100 hours a week to earn more would make me happy? Why did I think retiring to Sun City, Ariz., would please me? On the other hand, it can be enlightening. No wonder this teak patio set hasn't made me as happy as I expected. Even if she dumps me, I'll be O.K. Either way, predicting how things will feel to us over the long term is mystifying. A large body of research on well-being seems to suggest that wealth above middle-class comfort makes little difference to our happiness, for example, or that having children does nothing to improve well-being--even as it drives marital satisfaction dramatically down. We often yearn for a roomy, isolated home (a thing we easily adapt to), when, in fact, it will probably compromise our happiness by distancing us from neighbors. (Social interaction and friendships have been shown to give lasting pleasure.) The big isolated home is what Loewenstein, 48, himself bought. "I fell into a trap I never should have fallen into," he told me.

Loewenstein's office is up a narrow stairway in a hidden corner of an enormous, worn brick building on the edge of the Carnegie-Mellon campus in Pittsburgh. He and Gilbert make for an interesting contrast. Gilbert is garrulous, theatrical, dazzling in his speech and writing; he fills a room. Loewenstein is soft-spoken, given to abstraction and lithe in the way of a hard-core athlete; he seems to float around a room. Both men profess tremendous admiration for the other, and their different disciplines--psychology and economics--have made their overlapping interests in affective forecasting more complementary than fraught. While Gilbert's most notable contribution to affective forecasting is the impact bias, Loewenstein's is something called the "empathy gap."

Here's how it expresses itself. In a recent experiment, Loewenstein tried to find out how likely people might be to dance alone to Rick James's "Super Freak" in front of a large audience. Many agreed to do so for a certain amount of money a week in advance, only to renege when the day came to take the stage. This sounds like a goof, but it gets at the fundamental difference between how we behave in "hot" states (those of anxiety, courage, fear, drug craving, sexual excitation and the like) and "cold" states of rational calm. This empathy gap in thought and behavior--we cannot seem to predict how we will behave in a hot state when we are in a cold state--affects happiness in an important but somewhat less consistent way than the impact bias. "So much of our lives involves making decisions that have consequences for the future," Loewenstein says. "And if our decision making is influenced by these transient emotional and psychological states, then we know we're not making decisions with an eye toward future consequences." This may be as simple as an unfortunate proclamation of love in a moment of lust, Loewenstein explains, or something darker, like an act of road rage or of suicide.

Among other things, this line of inquiry has led Loewenstein to collaborate with health experts looking into why people engage in unprotected sex when they would never agree to do so in moments of cool calculation. Data from tests in which volunteers are asked how they would behave in various "heat of the moment" situations--whether they would have sex with a minor, for instance, or act forcefully with a partner who asks them to stop--have consistently shown that different states of arousal can alter answers by astonishing margins. "These kinds of states have the ability to change us so profoundly that we're more different from ourselves in different states than we are from another person," Loewenstein says.

Part of Loewenstein's curiosity about hot and cold states comes from situations in which his emotions have been pitted against his intellect. When he's not teaching, he treks around the world, making sure to get to Alaska to hike or kayak at least once a year. A scholar of mountaineering literature, he once wrote a paper that examined why climbers have a poor memory for pain and usually ignore turn-back times at great peril. But he has done the same thing himself many times. He almost died in a whitewater canoeing accident and vowed afterward that he never wanted to see his runaway canoe again. (A couple of hours later, he went looking for it.) The same goes for his climbing pursuits. "You establish your turn-back time, and then you find yourself still far from the peak," he says. "So you push on. You haven't brought enough food or clothes, and then as a result, you're stuck at 13,000 feet, and you have to just sit there and shiver all night without a sleeping bag or warm clothes. When the sun comes up, you're half-frozen, and you say, 'Never again.' Then you get back and immediately start craving getting out again." He pushes the point: "I have tried to train my emotions." But he admits that he may make the same mistakes on his next trip.

Would a world without forecasting errors be a better world? Would a life lived without forecasting errors be a richer life? Among the academics who study affective forecasting, there seems little doubt that these sorts of questions will ultimately jump from the academy to the real world. "If people do not know what is going to make them better off or give them pleasure," Daniel Kahneman says, "then the idea that you can trust people to do what will give them pleasure becomes questionable." To Kahneman, who did some of the first experiments in the area in the early 1990's, affective forecasting could greatly influence retirement planning, for example, where mistakes in prediction (how much we save, how much we spend, how we choose a community we think we'll enjoy) can prove irreversible. He sees a role for affective forecasting in consumer spending, where a "cooling off" period might remedy buyer's remorse. Most important, he sees vital applications in health care, especially when it comes to informed consent. "We consider people capable of giving informed consent once they are told of the objective effects of a treatment," Kahneman says. "But can people anticipate how they and other people will react to a colostomy or to the removal of their vocal cords? The research on affective forecasting suggests that people may have little ability to anticipate their adaptation beyond the early stages." Loewenstein, along with his collaborator Dr. Peter Ubel, has done a great deal of work showing that nonpatients overestimate the displeasure of living with the loss of a limb, for instance, or paraplegia. To use affective forecasting to prove that people adapt to serious physical challenges far better and will be happier than they imagine, Loewenstein says, could prove invaluable.

There are downsides to making public policy in light of this research, too. While walking in Pittsburgh one afternoon, Loewenstein tells me that he doesn't see how anybody could study happiness and not find himself leaning left politically; the data make it all too clear that boosting the living standards of those already comfortable, such as through lower taxes, does little to improve their levels of well-being, whereas raising the living standards of the impoverished makes an enormous difference. Nevertheless, he and Gilbert (who once declared in an academic paper, "Windfalls are better than pratfalls, A's are better than C's, December 25 is better than April 15, and everything is better than a Republican administration") seem to lean libertarian in regard to pushing any kind of prescriptive agenda. "We're very, very nervous about overapplying the research," Loewenstein says. "Just because we figure out that X makes people happy and they're choosing Y, we don't want to impose X on them. I have a discomfort with paternalism and with using the results coming out of our field to impose decisions on people."

Still, Gilbert and Loewenstein can't contain the personal and philosophical questions raised by their work. After talking with both men, I found it hard not to wonder about my own predictions at every turn. At times it seemed like knowing the secret to some parlor trick that was nonetheless very difficult to pull off--when I ogled a new car at the Honda dealership as I waited for a new muffler on my '92 Accord, for instance, or as my daughter's fever spiked one evening and I imagined something terrible, and then something more terrible thereafter. With some difficulty, I could observe my mind overshooting the mark, zooming past accuracy toward the sublime or the tragic. It was tempting to want to try to think about the future more moderately. But it seemed nearly impossible as well.

To Loewenstein, who is especially attendant to the friction between his emotional and deliberative processes, a life without forecasting errors would most likely be a better, happier life. "If you had a deep understanding of the impact bias and you acted on it, which is not always that easy to do, you would tend to invest your resources in the things that would make you happy," he says. This might mean taking more time with friends instead of more time for making money. He also adds that a better understanding of the empathy gap--those hot and cold states we all find ourselves in on frequent occasions--could save people from making regrettable decisions in moments of courage or craving.

Gilbert seems optimistic about using the work in terms of improving "institutional judgment"--how we spend health care dollars, for example--but less sanguine about using it to improve our personal judgment. He admits that he has taken some of his research to heart; for instance, his work on what he calls the psychological immune system has led him to believe that he would be able to adapt to even the worst turn of events. In addition, he says that he now takes more chances in life, a fact corroborated in at least one aspect by his research partner Tim Wilson, who says that driving with Gilbert in Boston is a terrifying, white-knuckle experience. "But I should have learned many more lessons from my research than I actually have," Gilbert admits. "I'm getting married in the spring because this woman is going to make me happy forever, and I know it." At this, Gilbert laughs, a sudden, booming laugh that fills his Cambridge office. He seems to find it funny not because it's untrue, but because nothing could be more true. This is how he feels. "I don't think I want to give up all these motivations," he says, "that belief that there's the good and there's the bad and that this is a contest to try to get one and avoid the other. I don't think I want to learn too much from my research in that sense."

Even so, Gilbert is currently working on a complex experiment in which he has made affective forecasting errors "go away." In this test, Gilbert's team asks members of Group A to estimate how they'll feel if they receive negative personality feedback. The impact bias kicks in, of course, and they mostly predict they'll feel terrible, when in fact they end up feeling O.K. But if Gilbert shows Group B that others have gotten the same feedback and felt O.K. afterward, then its members predict they'll feel O.K. as well. The impact bias disappears, and the participants in Group B make accurate predictions.

This is exciting to Gilbert. But at the same time, it's not a technique he wants to shape into a self-help book, or one that he even imagines could be practically implemented. "Hope and fear are enduring features of the human experience," he says, "and it is unlikely that people are going to abandon them anytime soon just because some psychologist told them they should." In fact, in his recent writings, he has wondered whether forecasting errors might somehow serve a larger functional purpose he doesn't yet understand. If he could wave a wand tomorrow and eliminate all affective-forecasting errors, I ask, would he? "The benefits of not making this error would seem to be that you get a little more happiness," he says. "When choosing between two jobs, you wouldn't sweat as much because you'd say: 'You know, I'll be happy in both. I'll adapt to either circumstance pretty well, so there's no use in killing myself for the next week.' But maybe our caricatures of the future--these overinflated assessments of how good or bad things will be--maybe it's these illusory assessments that keep us moving in one direction over the other. Maybe we don't want a society of people who shrug and say, 'It won't really make a difference.'

"Maybe it's important for there to be carrots and sticks in the world, even if they are illusions," he adds. "They keep us moving towards carrots and away from sticks."

Jon Gertner is a contributing writer for Money magazine.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
NEW YORK TIMES MAGAZINE Sept. 7, 2003, pp. 44+ "Copyright 2003, Jon Gertner. From THE NEW YORK TIMES MAGAZINE. Distributed by New York Special Features/Syndication Sales." By Jon Gertner If Daniel Gilbert is right, then you are wrong.

# data[].attributes.body
This article talks about murder and how our society deals with it or should deal with it, which relates to the murderous theme in hamlet.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
At the center of the storm around Kevin D. Williamson's move to The Atlantic, there are tweets, and at the center of those tweets, there are women. In tweets the conservative writer has since deleted (along with his account), he said the law should treat abortion like any homicide. For women who commit the deed, he said he had "hanging in mind."

Despite Williamson's views, or perhaps because of them, many conservatives have defended him and his new employer. Williamson, they point out, believes abortion ends a human being's life. If you truly think that abortion murders a defenseless child, it follows that you'd support criminal penalties of some kind-perhaps even the death penalty. There are those who subscribe to a different right-to-life ethos: Many Catholics, for example, oppose the death penalty along with abortion rights. Otherwise, Williamson's defenders have a point. The logical chain from one position to the other is hard to avoid.

Williamson isn't the first abortion opponent to argue that women should face legal consequences for abortion. "If the hit man is guilty, so is the person who ordered the hit," The Federalist's Georgi Boorman (http://thefederalist.com/2017/09/20/ben-shapiro-wrong-prosecuting-women-get-abortions/) argued. Abolish Abortion Idaho has called for the prosecution of abortion patients (http://www.abolishabortionid.com/should-mothers-be-excepted-from-prosecution-for-abortions/); at least one bill, introduced into the Texas legislature in 2017, proposed removing criminal immunity from homicide charges for patients and providers.

On the campaign trail, Donald Trump announced that there should be "some form of punishment" for the act if it is banned, and a poll later showed that 39 percent of his supporters agreed with him. (Trump later tried to recant.) Taken to its most extreme, the belief that women are complicit in murder when they solicit an abortion motivates domestic terrorism. Robert Lewis Dear didn't just target abortion providers when he shot up a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado. He targeted patients, too.

Nevertheless, criminal prosecution, let alone the death penalty, is further than most organized anti-abortion groups want to go. "Pro-life legislators and pro-life leaders do not support the prosecution of women and will not push for such a policy when Roe is overturned," stated Americans United for Life in a position paper, which outlined its belief (http://www.aul.org/2010/04/why-the-states-did-not-prosecute-women-for-abortion-before-roe-v-wade/) that women were not customarily prosecuted for procuring abortions before Roe. The counter-argument to Boorman and Williamson is typically based on the premise that women are victims of a callous industry.

"Just as a physician seeks to bring both mother and child safely through the labor process," Kimberly Ross wrote for Red State (https://www.redstate.com/kimberly_ross/2017/09/21/shapiro-prosecute-abortions-hes-right/), "we must guide women from a place of desperation and regret to hope and wholeness." "Women Deserve Better Than Abortion," the Alliance Defending Freedom, a far-right legal group, proclaims on its website (https://www.adflegal.org/issues/sanctity-of-life/abortions/key-issues/women-deserve-better-than-abortion). The so-called abortion industry "deceives" women, says Live Action News (https://savethestorks.com/2018/01/never-told-women-testify-deceived-abortion-industry/?nabe=5788403127025664:0&utm_referrer=https://www.google.com/).

But this view-that the law should punish providers, not women-directly contradicts rhetoric put forward by the same anti-abortion groups. Abortion is murder, they all agree. Some go beyond this. Abortion is a genocide, a hate crime, a second Holocaust. The argument put forward by Ross et al require us to think that women are helpless, with no agency of their own. That presumption is present within the movement's term of art for would-be abortion patients: "Abortion-minded." In 2018, the suggestion that women are a bit feeble in the head is a shaky sell. And it still doesn't square with the assertion that abortion is a murderous act.

Conservative statehouses have acted accordingly. They punish women by closing clinics, and by forcing them to wait days before they can terminate their pregnancies. They make their doctors tell them lies about the risks of the procedure-that abortion can cause breast cancer and PTSD and infertility, that a fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks. And then, when a woman finally summits the mountain legislators have placed in her path, she often faces a gauntlet of screaming picketers. Sometimes those picketers will follow her into the clinic to warn her she is about to become party to murder. Chances are decent that the doctor who performs the abortion regularly receives death threats or is stalked by the same people outside the clinic.

It is difficult, then, to believe that women would escape a nationwide abortion ban unscathed. Look no further than the U.S.'s neighbors to south. A 14 year-old rape victim in Paraguay recently died in childbirth after the law denied her an abortion. El Salvador regularly imprisons women who suffer miscarriages and stillbirths, under the rationale that their losses could actually be proof they had abortions. And the U.S. is already catching up to the standards they've set, as Irin Carmon noted for The Washington Post in 2017. Purvi Patel faced 20 years in prison in Indiana for inducing her own abortion, before her conviction for feticide was overturned. Anna Yocca spent a year in prison in Tennessee after attempting to end her pregnancy with the use of a coat hanger; she eventually pled guilty to "attempted procurement of a miscarriage."

"Before Roe, there were no feticide statutes like the one under which Patel was convicted," Carmon wrote. Now those statutes are here.

The anti-abortion movement is not of one mind. The movement is divided over tactics and policies and penalties. Some activists allow exceptions for rape or incest or the life of the mother. Others do not. But they all collapse the differences between an embryo and the person in whom it resides, and in doing so they help normalize extremism. The anti-abortion position reduces woman to host and prioritizes a future person over one that already exists. If activists achieve their demands, an entire population will lose the freedom to determine its reproductive fate. Such a draconian measure would need an equally immense justification, such as the end of mass murder.

And so abortion opponents cannot really separate themselves from Williamson's position. They've cast open the door; would-be prosecutors of women merely walk through it. To call an act murder is to call it a crime, and that is an implicit demand for state intervention. Anti-abortion activists all want to mobilize state power against the body in some manner. They want the law to constrain the body, to restrict it, to force it into certain patterns. Abortion opponents can say they don't want to punish women but the punishment is already there, in every proposal to force women to give birth. And why feel pity, if you think women are murderers? Give Williamson credit for his honesty, at least.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
At the center of the storm around Kevin D. Williamson's move to The Atlantic, there are tweets, and at the center of those tweets, there are women. In tweets the conservative writer has since deleted (along with his account), he said the law should treat abortion like any homicide.

# data[].attributes.body
So you want to learn about Toxic Masculinity? Read this article because it describes what is like for men and boys to experience and tolerate abuse and suffer consequences from being surrounded by toxic masculinity.

# data[].attributes.body
This article deals with unlikely hopes, which ties into the themes of hope and false hope in hamlet

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Los Angeles Times
(Los Angeles, CA)
Jan 13, 2016, p. B.1

Copyright © 2016 Los Angeles Times. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Some See a Dark Side to the Lottery Fervor--The Toll on the Poor

By Ruben Vives, Brittny Mejia and Paloma Esquivel

Isaiah Gonzalez has played the lottery for more than two decades. He thinks he's won about $15 in that time.

"If I had started putting away a dollar here and there 20 years ago, I probably would have saved up $1,500 or more," said Gonzalez, 51.

The Long Beach resident often struggles to earn enough money painting houses to eat and pay rent. Still, the possibility of a jackpot compels him to play.

"What if I win?" he said. "I want the money because life is hard right now. And who wouldn't want an easier life?"

For years, the lottery has been a way for people of modest means to dream about striking it rich, no matter how low the odds. But the last few weeks have been particularly frenzied as the Powerball jackpot broke records and drawings yielded no winners.

That jackpot -- now at $1.5 billion -- has reignited debate about whether this is all harmless entertainment or something darker that plays on the hopes of poorer players, eroding their ability to save while offering little in return.

"They're playing this to try and get back to some status ... and see this as their best chance of doing so," Cornell University economist David Just said. But the chances of coming out a big winner are "astronomically low."

The odds of winning the Powerball jackpot are about 1 in 292 million.

Lottery officials say the odds are beside the point.

"The tickets are $2 and serve a purpose if it's their entertainment," California Lottery spokesman Alex Traverso said. "Ultimately, the bottom line -- if they have $2 in their pockets and this is what they like to do, then that's what they're going to do."

Past the double glass doors, near a set of gospel pamphlets inside Luna's Market in South Los Angeles, is a wall covered with lottery tickets.

Winners' names are written on each ticket, reflecting the neighborhood's diverse residents: Lupita $100, R. McPherson $500, Steve $200 and Ernesto $200.

The pink brick store is in a neighborhood where 44% of residents live below the poverty line and unemployment is high. Employee Alex Reynoso sells tickets from behind a protective glass window. Lottery players make up about half the store's clientele, he said.

"We get people with families, single, homeless, all kinds of people," Reynoso said.

Customer Roberto Lopez, 58, a parking attendant and father of two teenage boys, said he recently cut down on buying scratch-off tickets because he believed he had become addicted.

"I was losing more money than what I was winning," he said. "Sometimes I felt a sense of guilt."

Still, he hoped to buy a Powerball ticket before Wednesday's draw, dreaming of a better life for his family if he won, Lopez said.

"If not, then it's back to fighting the good fight," he said.

Lottery supporters say the money goes to a good cause -- funding schools. And players come from all walks of life.

Studies commissioned by the California Lottery show that the income distribution of players closely reflects that of California residents.

Lottery players are "vastly similar to California's population in terms of demographics," said Traverso, the lottery spokesman.

Duke University economist Charles Clotfelter, co-author of the book "Selling Hope: State Lotteries in America," said looking at the demographics of players without considering how much each group spends misses the point.

Clotfelter and other researchers say it's well established that low-income players spend a greater percentage of their income on the lottery. Some studies have also found that low-income people spend more in actual dollars than higher-income players, experts said.

Just, the Cornell economist, said his studies have shown that low-income players don't just play for entertainment. "It seems like they're really trying to play this to win," he said. His research has also found that as unemployment increases, unemployed people play the lottery more often.

George Loewenstein, a professor of economics and psychology at Carnegie Mellon University, and other researchers found in one study that people made to feel poor bought more lottery tickets.

The findings, he said, "suggest that lottery tickets provide an escape from the feeling of poverty."

Generally, he doesn't consider that a terrible thing. "It's a cheap way to buy a license to fantasize," Loewenstein said.

But he's troubled by the Powerball. Not too long ago officials changed the rules to increase the chance of a massive jackpot while decreasing the chance of winning that jackpot. The chance of winning smaller prizes also went up. The result, Loewenstein said, is that people are spending more on tickets.

"To me it can make sense for somebody to spend $2 to buy a dream. When you're ... spending $200 and you don't have enough money to meet a medical emergency, then that starts to get self-destructive."

Outside Smile's Donut House in Wilmington on Monday, Juan Gonzalez, 58, used a key to scratch a "Quick $50s" ticket. He said he doesn't gamble too often.

"Sometimes I win $5 and believe me, I'm one happy man those times."

The 58-year-old said he has a hard time finding enough work as a mechanic each month to pay rent. Last month, he fell short by $250, he said.

Wearing a gray sweater, his hands stained with motor oil, Gonzalez said he's ambivalent about the lottery.

"Winning is difficult," he said. "There's also an overwhelming anticipation of waiting to see if the numbers pop up."

Inside Smile's, employee Sakhan Touch, 56, said the shop had sold 3,000 tickets in recent days.

"We've had people who can only afford to pay with quarters and pennies. It slows us down but we obviously take it," he said.

In Long Beach, Isaiah Gonzalez, the painter, said he bought his Powerball ticket on Saturday. Asked what he would do with the winnings, he said he'd probably give most of it away.

"I'd be happy with just a million dollars. I'd travel, eat, drink with that money," he said.

Sometimes, Gonzalez said, he indulges in another fantasy.

"Wouldn't it be nice if they just took all this money and made a list from the most to less needy and help people out?" he said. "We would all stop wondering about winning or not."

ruben.vives@latimes.com

brittny.mejia@latimes.com

paloma.esquivel@latimes.com

Times staff writer Joseph Serna contributed to this report.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Los Angeles Times (Los Angeles, CA) Jan 13, 2016, p. B.1 Copyright © 2016 Los Angeles Times. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission. By Ruben Vives, Brittny Mejia and Paloma Esquivel Isaiah Gonzalez has played the lottery for more than two decades. He thinks he's won about $15 in that time.

# data[].attributes.body
So you want to learn about mental health? Read this article because it provides a thorough explanation of mental health and mental health issues and can help the reader develop an opinion on Hamlet and his mental health issues.

# data[].attributes.body
So u wanna learn more bout betrayal? Read this article because it introduces why betrayal is under a big topic in a kingdom(Army)

# data[].attributes.headline
So you want to know more about betrayal? Read this article https://www.scrible.com/view/source/EKQG1C053G1EOJM11483C32K8I446G2N:443236567/.  This talks about how betrayal hits hard and how it is good, but hard to forgive.

# data[].attributes.subject
So you want to know more about betrayal? Read this article https://www.scrible.com/view/source/EKQG1C053G1EOJM11483C32K8I446G2N:443236567/.  This talks about how betrayal hits hard and how it is good, but hard to forgive.

# data[].attributes.body
This article helps you understand revenge strategies that were common in Europe during shake spare's time

# data[].attributes.body
This article helps you understand how death is a theme throughout hamlet.

# data[].attributes.body
This article goes into detail about

# data[].attributes.body
This is an article that discusses the theme of Incest between royal families. This article explains how incest between worked and why incest often occurred.

# data[].attributes.body
This article helps you understand how hamlet's psychological issues worked

# data[].attributes.body
So you want to learn about justified homicide? Read this article because it gives an example of a homicide that was justified and can be used to compare to Hamlet's reasoning for wanting to kill Claudius.

# data[].attributes.body
This article shows Hamlets connection and relationship with the queen and other women at the time

# data[].attributes.body
so you want to learn more about  insest topic with hamlet then you should read this because it explains the topic

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Welcome to SIRS Discoverer! Please enter your username and password.

# data[].attributes.body
so you want to learn more about murder? Read this article http://sks.sirs.com/webapp/article?artno=0000405399&type=ART
because the article is talking about solving murder and how the planet can be rarely peaceful.

# data[].attributes.body
so you  wanna learn about hamlet and death you should read this article.because it explains the topic

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Welcome to SIRS Discoverer! Please enter your username and password.

# data[].attributes.body
so you wanna learn about betrayl in hamlet you should read this article because it explains the topic

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Welcome to SIRS Discoverer! Please enter your username and password.

# data[].attributes.body
so you want to know more about this depression that hamlet is showing then you should read this because this could answer your question

# data[].attributes.body
so you want to know more about why hamlet is mad at his fathers murder then you should read this because this will help with your response to future questions

# data[].attributes.body
so you want to learn more about love? Read this article  http://sks.sirs.com/webapp/article?artno=0000409788&type=ART
it talks about choosing a mate to stay with the whole part of your life.

# data[].attributes.body
So you want to know more about the topic of incest? Then you should read this article because it talks about the rewards and consequences of practicing incest during the royal times like Hamlet.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
THE RISKS AND REWARDS OF ROYAL INCEST: EBSCOhost

# data[].attributes.body
So you want to know more about the topic of familicide? You should read this article. This article goes in depth about why family members kill other family members.

# data[].attributes.body
This article was good because it talked about different types of betrayal and how it affects different types of literature

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Betrayal : Developmental, Literary, and Clinical Realms: Discover GALILEO

# data[].attributes.body
So you want to know more about the topic of Revenge, then you should read this article because it gives you similarities in literature between tragedies of revenge.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
SOME COMMON TRAITS SHARED BY ENGLISH RENAISSANCE REVENGE TRAGEDIES: EBSCOhost

# data[].attributes.body
So you want to know more about suicide? You should read this article because it shows how suicide can impact a society and people.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Issues Researcher - Japan's Youth Suicide Rate Highest in 30 Years

# data[].attributes.body
This article talked about what family incest in royal families usually does to their monarchies. It talks about possible reasons why those events occurred.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Sibling Incest in the Royal Families of Egypt, Peru, and Hawaii: Discover GALILEO

# data[].attributes.body
So you want to know more about incest? You should look at this article because it can inform you on the topic of incest and the families it occurs in.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Issues Researcher - Diagnosing Incest_ The Problem of False Positives.._

# data[].attributes.body
So you want to know more about the topic of Mental Health, then you should read this because it gives you an idea of what may have caused Hamlet's schizophrenia such as a marital status

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Perceptions of the causes of schizophrenia and associated factors by the Ho...: EBSCOhost

# data[].attributes.body
Murder, Hatred are a big part of Hamlet. this is shown by hamlet attitude to the arranged marriage of his mother and is uncle immediately after hid death. for more information copy use the link below.

https://www.scrible.com/app/#/libraries

# data[].attributes.body
So you want to know more about incest? Then you should read

# data[].attributes.body
So you want to learn about revenge? Read this article http://eds.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail/detail?vid=12&sid=10b5e2cb-60bf-4f69-b144-4ab1a824f205%40sdc-v-sessmgr03&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#AN=134414081&db=a9h. Because it talks about revenge and why it happened and why it is done.

# data[].attributes.body
So you want to know more about betrayal? Read this article https://www.scrible.com/view/source/EKQG1C053G1EOJM11483C32K8I446G2N:443236567/.  This talks about how betrayal hits hard and how it is good, but hard to forgive.

# data[].attributes.body
So you want to know more about depression? Read this article http://discoverer.prod.sirs.com/discoweb/disco/do/article?urn=urn%3Asirs%3AUS%3BARTICLE%3BART%3B0000254926. This talks about the symptoms of depression, the unexpectancy, and how common it is.

# data[].attributes.body
Do you wish to know what causes people to want revenge and the emotions behind them click here

# data[].attributes.body
Wish to know what emotions death evokes? Click here. It’s about what mental processes the brain go through when one deals with death.

# data[].attributes.body
Want to know why people go through depression, click here. It talks about why people go through depression and how it affects you, your brain, and those around you.😞🤯