Personhood for the superiority of man

Even when their own strategist specifically tells them to do so, Republicans just can’t seem to stop talking about rape. Rape rape rape. They looooove rape. You don’t even need a woman’s consent to MAKE MOAR BABIESZ. It’s a Freudian power-fantasy and the manifest destiny of their superior white sperm, all rolled into one.

Which is why it should come as no surprise that Paul Ryan’s latest version of his seminal “cell clusters and more valuable than the slutty sluts harboring them” bill contains deliberately-ambiguous language that would actually serve to protect the rights of rapists at the expense of the rights of women.

Section 2(2) of the proposed legislation states, “Congress affirms that the Congress of each State, the District of Columbia, and all United States territories have the authority to protect the lives of all human beings residing in its [sic] respective jurisdictions.” Which means if a woman tried to access her legal right to privacy and autonomy in her health care decisions, the man who raped and impregnated her against her will could force her into a courtroom and sue her because the magic fetus he created with his omnipotent male god-sperm is a life.

I’m not sure I can even bring myself to write about the unmitigated horrors of that kind of situation.

This acceptance and legitimization of rape absolutely must stop. Rape is not a “method of conception” or an unintentional “gift from God;” rape is an abomination and a vile reflection of the hellish depths to which our society is sinking. Rapists do not have equal rights; they are criminals.

Do you know how many times the word “woman” is mentioned in Ryan’s Sanctity of Human Life bill? Zero. Exactly zero times. Not that this is shocking, since Republicans have publicly declared via their refusal to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) that not all women are people. Women are not guaranteed a “sanctity of human life,” they are only guaranteed their proper place beneath a man and breeding.

None of this Republican crusade to “protect babies” has anything to do with protecting actual, innocent human life. If Republicans had a Jesus-like concern for innocent lives, they would expand protections under VAWA, they would expand social services for underprivileged children, they would increase social support for women so bringing a child into the world wouldn’t be such a financially daunting task, they would cut military spending and increase school meal programs – not the other way around.

They don’t want to protect “babies” – they want to protect the sanctity of their own sperm. Sadly, I’m not kidding. They want legislated recognition that human life spews forth from their uncut dicks, and that they therefor are superior to women in all ways, just as their convoluted interpretation of the bible dictates. Their life-sabre penises are the wand of God, spreading their sacred seed far and wide. By any means necessary.

Sanctifying the result of rape as an act of God negates the very humanity of the woman upon which the crime was perpetrated.

But unfortunately for Republicans, it’s 2013, and the tide in this country seems to be slowly but surely turning. I hope these vainglorious attempts to sanctify fatherhood at the expense of a woman’s very humanity are the last dying gasps of a spiteful breed of misogynists facing the reality that “white male” is no longer an unparalleled virtue. The defeat of nearly every idiot Republican who said something stupid about rape in the 2012 election seems to indicate that humanity in this country is not faltering and falling prostrate at the altar of regressivism and hatred.

Until then, though, we must continue to speak out against these insidious hatemongers and identify their disingenuous rhetorical bullshit for what it is: blatant and deadly misogyny. 

Stop calling her ‘Pregnant Kate’

Ever since Kate Middleton and Prince William got married in 2011, there has been incessant talk of the royal heir and rabid speculation about when they’d start a family. And now that she’s officially announced her pregnancy, the media feeding frenzy has gone into full effect.

But what’s absolutely driving me nuts is the insistence on calling her “Pregnant Kate.”

People Magazine:

Pregnant Kate Leaves Hospital

CBS News:

Pregnant Kate out of hospital after treatment for acute morning sickness

ABC News:

Pregnant Kate Middleton’s Hospital Falls for Prank Call From Australian Radio Station

Pregnant Kate Discharged from London Hospital

Pregnant Kate Middleton Feeling Better After Second Day

USA Today:

Pregnant Kate discharged from London Hospital

BBC:
Pregnant Kate leaves hospital

Chicago Tribune:

Pregnant Kate Middleton leaves hospital after morning sickness

There’s even a website: PregnantKate.com.

As if now that she’s pregnant, she has ceased to be anything more than the contents of her uterus. She is no longer Kate Middleton, Duchess of Cambridge; she’s the royal broodmare. She’s not Kate Middleton, an autonomous person who also happens to be pregnant – she’s the pregnant royal baby-carrier.

Why does this matter? Why does it upset me? Because it’s emblematic of how our culture treats women and understands pregnancy. A man who gets a job is not called “Working Tom,” because he is not defined solely by that one characteristic of his life, so why should a woman who gets pregnant be referred to as "Pregnant Woman"? If you can ask "are men doing this?" and the answer is No, there's probably something sexist about the situation. 

The act of conception does not make the cell cluster in a woman’s body equal in all respects to the woman carrying it. Regardless of when you believe “life” begins, if you remove that cell cluster from her uterus, Jesus will not come down from the clouds and magic it into a tax-paying, bible-thumping, Republican-voting person. That fetus exists and can grow and develop BECAUSE of the woman, not in spite of her.

And the woman’s part in the process cannot be ignored.

Women are not meek and silent baby-ovens, and pregnancy does not define who a person is. It may change who she becomes as a result of the pregnancy, but it does not change her inherent worth as a person. Her humanity is not suddenly secondary to that of the fetus developing inside her.

We have to stop treating women as if their only value to society is to spawn new little humans. Not every woman can or will have children, and that’s okay. Her worth should not be defined by whether or not she has or plans to reproduce. Defining someone by one function of their body ignores or trivializes every other aspect of who they are. Especially in the case of a public figure like Kate Middleton, who has done tons of charitable work since marrying into the royal family - she is and deserves to be more than just her pregnancy.

Yes, biologically, creating the next generation is something we CAN do, but it’s not the ONLY thing we can do. And we deserve to be respected and recognized as PEOPLE at all times, regardless of whether we’re in the process of creating new life or not.

So please, for the sake of my humanity and yours, stop calling her “Pregnant Kate.”

Equal access

Despite the best efforts of the GOP, most women living in most areas of the US (Mississippi, Arkansas and Arizona are some notable exceptions) do have more freedom and better access to opportunities than women living in many other parts of the world. But one area where we seriously lack is access to birth control.

Yes, we can get it (most of the time, and if we can afford it), but most people don’t even know what equal access to gender-specific birth control (condoms are male-specific, as they are worn by the man – oral contraceptives are [currently] female-specific) would look like. 

Imagine a man wants to procure a gender-specific method of contraception. He goes to a drug store/gas station/grocery store/public restroom and purchases one for about $0.50 each, or $6-$10 for a pack.

Now imagine a woman wants to procure gender-specific, oral contraceptives.

If she has insurance, she has to set up an appointment with her OB/GYN, or possibly with her primary care provider first, to get a referral to her OB/GYN, and wait for the appointment (oftentimes for weeks!) – alternately, of course – a woman could go to a Planned Parenthood IF it hasn’t been defunded in her state. Then once she is able to take the time off work to attend her appointment, most of the time she’ll be forced to undergo a non-birth-control-specific, not medically-necessary invasive pap smear which is tied to prescribing to further discourage women from engaging in sexual activity. Then she has to take the prescription to the pharmacy, hope the pharmacist doesn’t think his or her religious beliefs supersede the woman’s private medical decision, get the prescription, and return every 4-12 weeks to pick up a new pack. And then repeat annually.

Sort of a side note, but the American Cancer Society has released new guidelines recommending that women now should only get pap smears beginning at age 21, then once every 3-5 years between the ages of 21-30, and once every 5 years after that. Yet the pap smear/pelvic exam is still a mandatory part of the birth control process for the vast majority of women. Why?

Because it’s another means of controlling and degrading us. It started off as a patronizing “women are too stupid to take care of themselves if we don’t require them to do it” and has continued on as an uncomfortable method of forcing women to submit to physical and sexual discomfort in order to gain access to safer sex. You want to be penetrated? How about by ice-cold tongs.

But back to my original point. The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has recently recommended that oral contraceptives be available over the counter without a doctor’s prescription. They point to studies that show that easier access to oral contraceptives will lower the country’s unintended pregnancy rate, will drastically reduce costs for taxpayers, and that prove that oral contraceptives are safe. In fact, oral contraceptives are safer than Aspirin, but you won’t hear that statistic from the religious right. The only indicator that needs to be checked for oral contraceptives is blood pressure to ensure against the possible risk of stroke, and most pharmacies are already equipped with a blood pressure machine.

But with the way our country is currently heading, I don’t see their recommendation being adopted anytime soon.

Why? Because the very vocal, very wealthy religious right doesn’t believe women should have equal access to sexuality. And that’s what the fight is really about – not about some poor Catholic having his religious beliefs trampled upon by some woman he doesn’t know taking a daily pill, but about a subset of the population who believe women should be controlled by any means possible.

If women can’t access birth control, they can’t have sex as frequently, or without a considerably higher risk of pregnancy. It ensures women face greater consequences for the moral sin of enjoying sex and demanding equality. To these people, the purpose of woman is to serve as docile broodmare to her husband – if women can control reproduction, they can attain higher levels of education and wealth, and threaten the entrenched superiority of the white man. And that’s what’s at stake here – not just access to birth control, but access to the right to say ‘I am allowed the same sexual, physical and moral freedom as a man. I am owed equality. Recognize my humanity.’  

Is Mitt Romney a Real American?

There’s been a lot of political winking and nudging going on lately, with people talking about how Mitt Romney is a *REAL* American (you know, because that black guy isn’t). So I decided to do a little research.

Here’s a brief list of how Real American Mitt™ stacks up against the Real American Constitution:

First amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion

Romney’s running mate has voted for a personhood amendment, which would establish life as beginning at birth, an inherently Christian belief. The new Republican platform also calls for a complete ban on abortion, even in cases of rape, incest or when the mother’s life is at risk. Under Jewish law, it is considered a mitzvah (a good deed) to save the life of the mother, even if that means performing an abortion. Any of these bans would be a clear violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Second amendment

The right to keep and bear arms

Romney supported the Clinton Gun Ban in 1994, and in 2008 told Meet the Press he would have renewed the failed gun control law. As governor of Massachusetts in 2002, Romney signed one of the toughest assault weapon laws in the country. He's flip-flopped recently to pander to the NRA vote, but that only proves what little regard he has for his own beliefs and the Constitution. 

Fourth amendment

“…right of the people to be secure … against unreasonable searches and seizures…”

Romney has chosen as one of his foreign policy advisors Michael Hayden, a member of the Bush administration who added to the Patriot Act the ability of the government to wiretap phones and monitor electronic activity. Romney has also affirmed his support of current TSA search practices.

Sixth amendment

Protects the right to a fair and speedy public  trial by jury and the right to retain counsel

Romney once said “Now we're going to -- you said the person's going to be in Guantanamo. I'm glad they're at Guantanamo. I don't want them on our soil. I want them on Guantanamo, where they don't get the access to lawyers they get when they're on our soil. I don't want them in our prisons. I want them there.”

Fourteenth amendment

“no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Romney supports a complete ban on LGBT marriages, and would support the Republican platform which bans LGBT individuals from serving in the military. Romney also believes men have a right to self-determination over their bodies, but not women.

Fifteenth amendment

Prohibits the denial of suffrage based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude

Pennsylvania Republican Mike Turzai stated during a Republican State Committee meeting that voter ID laws would “allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania.” A Pennsylvania judge upheld those laws, claiming they’d be “fairly enforced,” despite pretty obvious evidence to the contrary. Florida’s attempt to enact voter ID laws primarily targeted Democrats, and reduced new Democrat registrations to almost zero in its immediate wake. Attempts were made in Ohio to limit voting hours for primarily low-income, Democratic areas, though that blatant attempt at racial segregation failed. Colorado attempts at a voter purge targeted over 4 times more Democrats than Republicans, specifically those who registered with non-resident (though still legal) paperwork (those would be Hispanic voters, if you didn’t catch on).

Sixteenth amendment

Allows the federal government to collect income tax

Romney claimed that he has paid “no less than 13% income tax” on his fortune – which is terribly generous of him, because I’m rather solidly middle class and pay around 30%. Romney has refused to release more than 2 years of tax records, because the vast majority of his funds are in off-shore tax havens.

Now fucking tell me again how Romney’s a Real American. I fucking dare you. 

Ryan and Rape

The Huffington Post drew attention to a statement made by VP nominee Paul Ryan about rape and the method of conception. His statement was that “the method of conception doesn't change the definition of life."

Many commenters, liberal and conservative, pointed out that Ryan doesn’t specifically say “rape is an acceptable method of conception” and that he also talks about the Romney/Ryan ticket, which at some point might have mentioned exceptions for rape, incest, and life of the mother.*

*Of course, I think it’s safe to discount that last argument, since the official GOP platform which was recently unveiled supports a complete ban on abortion, even (especially?) in cases of rape and life of the mother. I’m still not quite sure how they expect a 10-week old cell cluster to become a person without – you know ­– a woman to grow inside, but that’s another story.

First of all, semantics. Ryan is specifically asked about exceptions in the case of rape, and his response was formulated within that context. What Ryan’s statement does do is very-explicitly imply that a rape or sexual assault is a legitimate (thanks, Akin!) way to begin a pregnancy. Which it's not. Ever.

This is simply a nuanced form of victim-blaming.

Rather than focusing on a culture that is still far too tolerant of rape (mainly because it refuses to fully recognize or understand it), this shifts the focus to the outcome - to villainizing the women who don't want to deal with the repercussions of rape as Republicans think they should. It shifts the entire discussion away from “rape is an evil that cannot be tolerated” and turns it to “women are second class citizens.”

It’s a diversionary tactic to make us focus on one aspect of our rapid disenfranchisement, while another aspect of it is just further cemented in the popular vernacular.

Several years ago, Israel was dealing with an issue of increased rapes. Then-Prime Minister Golda Meir was encouraged to institute a curfew for women, for their own protection. Meir responded “Men are committing the rapes. Let them be put under curfew.”

At the national level, we lack even this basic understanding that we cannot continue to blame the victim. Rape will continue to be an issue so long as men like Todd Akin and Paul Ryan treat it as an inevitable occurrence, or as if most women are just liars and sluts who make it up or ask for it.

Rather than wanting to eliminate rape, Ryan wants to eliminate a woman's choice in dealing with rape. And that's the problem with his particular, insidious brand of misogyny.  

So you want to end abortion

Ahh abortion: the screaming-point that has kept middle-aged Christian supremacists and misogynists relevant for over 40 years.

Right wingers like to do a lot of fancy talking about protecting the unborn and extending rights to all humans (except Muslims, women, Native American women, illegal immigrants, LGBT individuals, hungry school children, the middle class, poor people, etc.), but what they refuse to do is be honest about their intentions.

Say you wanted to end cancer. Would you start by cutting off all chemotherapy treatments? After all, if no one is getting treated for cancer, cancer must no longer exist, right? Hmm. Probably not. Sure, it removes the problem of people getting sick, losing their hair, and possibly dying anyway, but it does nothing to address the underlying cause.

You don’t end the need for abortions by taking abortions away.

We reduce the need for abortions by reducing the incidences of unwanted pregnancies.

We start by educating people about safe sex. Abstinence-only education doesn’t work – communities with abstinence-only programs have disproportionately higher rates of teen pregnancies than other communities of similar socioeconomic standing that teach actual sex education.

Then we make sure people can access effective forms of birth control and use them properly. We make sure lower-income women in poor, rural communities have access to birth control at free clinics, so they can control the size of their family or delay child birth until they’re financially able to have children. You don’t let their lives be subject to the oppressive whims of religious organizations that would condemn them to hell for an abortion, but abandon them to poverty if they were to have the child.

Then we change the social culture to be supportive and inclusive of all people. We make sure women can access adequate health care resources for their children. We incentivize education for boys and girls, and make sure families have access to the resources they need to keep their children in school through high school. We create a society that is truly inclusive of individuals with disabilities, because currently over 80 percent of women who receive a prenatal diagnosis of Downs Syndrome choose to terminate.

The path to reducing abortion rates is clear: better sex education, better access to contraception, and better social support for those who do choose to keep an unwanted pregnancy.

So why can’t Republican pro-lifers figure this out?

I’ll let you in on a little secret: because that’s not their goal at all.

This is not rocket science; We have the resources, we have the money, we have the knowledge and the skills to drastically reduce abortion rates in this country, but that’s not what the religious zealots – the ones controlling the pro-life crusade – really want.

They want control.

They want widespread recognition that women are less competent, less worthy than men, and therefore should be subservient to man, as their God intended. They ultimately want women out of the workforce and back in the home, acting out a perverse vision of a dystopian bible scene.

They want to bend government to the whims of the Church. They want their beliefs recognized as superior to set the stage for establishing a national religion and a return to a theocratic state.

Don’t believe me? Look at Todd Akin, who publicly announced that most women are liars and sluts, or the Reverend Jesse Lee Peterson, who thinks giving women the right to vote was the greatest mistake man ever made. Look at David Kennedy, a major muse for Akin, who believed women invite rape and who wanted to “reclaim America for Christ.” These men didn’t come up with these ideas on their own – believe me, they’re not smart enough.

They’re being fed this Machiavellian enmity piece by piece, and spreading their virulence on to their followers. And they’re succeeding in reaching the mainstream.

There are many millions of people out there who don’t recognize the ulterior motives of the religious right, and who truly believe they’re fighting the sacred fight for the wee bitty babies. They won’t recognize the truth until it’s their turn to be persecuted.

Freedom of religion is also freedom from religious tyranny. Let’s get these anti-American, anti-progressive, hate-filled bigots out of our uteruses and out of our government. 

Legitimate rape

Legitimate rape (noun): 1. The Republican-confirmed act of a large, burly, often dark-skinned or poor (or both) male dragging a virginal, screaming, helpless female into a dark alley, holding her down, and having vaginal intercourse with her against her will; an act from which no unwanted baby results, so long as she is properly traumatized, was not “asking for it” and prays diligently to Jesus. 2. A travesty; like a Republican getting elected. 3. Something extremely rare, like a Republican with common sense.

Aside from the obvious problems with Todd Akin’s idea that women have some magical mechanism that prevents them from getting pregnant during cases of legitimate rape (1. It’s wrong, 2. It’s ignorant, and 3. Yeah, still wrong), the idea is part of a larger, hate-filled agenda targeted at marginalizing not only women but people in same-sex relationships as well.

Adding a qualifier to rape shifts the burden of proof to the victim; if there is legitimate rape, there must also be non-legitimate rape. If a woman was raped, but didn’t get pregnant, she must have been asking for it, or have subconsciously wanted it. It’s slut-shaming taken to an extreme, to assume a woman is always a sexual object, and therefore must justify any situation in which she did not want to be used as such.

This kind of hateful rhetoric only serves to codify and reinforce the idea that women are sexual, devious, and senseless beings, intent on causing harm to men. Rather than focusing on shifting the blame to a society that teaches men that it’s okay to sexualize and fetishize women, and to see women as an object rather than a person, it blames women for being that object of the male gaze. It reinforces the idea that most women are liars, faking rapes left and right just to … what? Damage some guy’s career? Salve their own bruised egos if a man doesn’t call them the next day? The man is innocent until proven guilty, but the woman is guilty until proven innocent.

In cases of male rape, by a woman or another man (3 percent of adult males, 5 percent of male children, and much higher within the prison population) (Coxell, King, Mezey, and Gordon, 1999) or woman on woman rape, pregnancy (of the victim) cannot result, so the rape must not be legitimate. Like the Republican version of the Violence Against Women Act, which protects only certain women (straight, non-Hispanic and non-Native American, primarily), this idea of legitimate rape encompasses only certain victims – the Republican-approved kind.

In a half-assed apology attempt, Akin says he misspoke, but he was simply parroting extremist right-wing views; views that are sadly becoming more acceptably mainstream. Good Christian girls don’t get raped because they know better, they dress appropriately and Jesus protects them; if you were more like them, you wouldn’t get raped either.

The very tenet of most religion is that morality and worth comes from being a member of that religion. Even if the religion preaches tolerance or love for others, it still creates the dichotomy of the other – the outsider who is not quite as good, or quite as deserving.

This current iteration of Republicans doesn’t care for equality; they openly campaign for a return to morality – specifically the superiority of their own twisted morality.

Mr. Akin, there is currently a legitimate rape taking place – the rape of American values such as equality and tolerance and progress – at the hands of the evangelical right who seeks to seize control of this country and govern by divine mandate. And this is one victim we need to save. 

What are they so afraid of?

It’s easy to get lost in the details of the war on women. After all, the repeated and hateful assaults on our access to health care, safety from domestic violence and even our right to vote are nearly overwhelming.

But why is this happening? Why now? Why, instead of focusing on jobs or military spending or any of the other fiscal issues facing this country are the Republicans so determined to subjugate and undermine women?

Because we scare them.

By being strong, we are a threat to their masculinity. Our strength is their weakness.

Men are raised from birth to see themselves as the caretakers, the breadwinners, the pants-wearers of the family. When women are capable and independent, it threatens to encroach on the very role men were taught was their due.

Our gender identities are cemented from a very young age; through the toys we receive, the lessons we are taught and the role models we watch. Girls are given tea sets and miniature kitchens and easy-bake ovens and dolls – toys that prepare us for the inevitable future of domesticity. Boys are given toy swords and guns and construction sets and action figures (not male dolls – these are “heroes,” ready for action) – all things that develop their “natural” aggressive, strong, leader-of-the-pack mentality.

We learn that girls must be “ladylike,” but “boys will be boys.” We see the roles that our parents, grandparents, and the adults around us play. We become aware of the fact that most of our teachers and babysitters and nannies are female, while police officers and soldiers and politicians are men.

When we dress too provocatively, we are whores. When we demand control of our reproductive lives, we are sluts. When we speak too loudly or too passionately, we are hysterical. When we seek out careers in male-dominated fields, we are butch, or trouble-makers. We are always subject to the judgment of men, particularly religious men (and women) who benefit from finding us wanting.

So we maintain the status quo, but each generation of women grows a little more restless. We see some women break the mold. We gain the education that would never have been available to our grandmothers. We start to recognize that our worth is not tied to our anatomy and that we have something to contribute to the world beyond a womb fertile for breeding.

And that scares those people whose worth is tied to our suppression. If we are no longer the sinners, are they still the saints?

Religious men cling to their beliefs and their religious texts (this is not just a Christian or Catholic phenomenon – it transpires in various religions) as a means of securing their “God-given” superiority. They trumpet their bible verses and the entrenched beliefs of their forefathers as proof that we are not as good, or as worthy, or as human as they are. The truly insidious ones claim it is for our own good – that they have our best interests at heart.  

We have to break this pattern. We have to speak out against every instance of misogyny we face, because every catcall, every pointed look, every missed promotion, every real or implied instance of “you’re just a girl, what do you know” allows fear-based hatred to continue.

Every time a man is allowed to get away with treating us as if our opinions, our bodies, our lives are subject to their approval, we are only cementing their belief in their right to dictate to us on issues of our safety and health. By sitting quietly in the face of ignorance and deep-rooted misogyny, we are complicit in our continued servitude and the rapid devaluation of our very lives.

So be scared, boys, because I, for one, refuse to be silent.     

Dear Women

Dear women of America,

Do you really, truly hate Obama more than you love your own freedom, your own body, your own right to be treated as an equal human being? If you vote for Romney, that’s what you’re telling me.

CNN released a poll this morning that showed Obama’s support among women dropped 5 percent over the last two months from 49 to 44 percent, while Romney’s went up from 43 to 46 percent. Obviously this is just one poll, and the margin of difference is within the survey’s sampling error, but Romney should legitimately have 0 percent support among women if we’re being honest with ourselves.

The current Republican party, the puppeteer behind Romney, is the single greatest threat to women’s rights in the past 80+ years.

I’ve mentioned this number before, and I’ll bring it up again: Since January of this year, over 900 (that’s NINE HUNDRED) bills have been introduced nationwide that in some way seek to limit women’s access to birth control, health care, abortion rights and equal pay.

They want to roll back our rights to biblical levels, because their god (and their ignorant religious leadership) is telling them to do so. Women haven’t faced this much blatant and open misogyny from the Republican Party since well before our right to vote was recognized.

Here are highlights of some of the anti-women legislation that has gained traction and/or passed into law across the country:

• Arizona’s newest 20-week abortion ban begins counting pregnancy from a woman’s last menstrual period (up to two weeks before she is *actually* pregnant) rather than fetal age, women facing serious fetal abnormalities later term (you know, when they can be detected) have 0 – 24 hours to make a decision about terminating the pregnancy. Later term abortions need to be protected. They also support the right to religiously-based discrimination – because that always works out well. Employers in Arizona can now deny women birth control coverage for religious reasons. Because favoring the religious beliefs of one group over another isn’t a violation of the Constitution or anything.
• On May 17, Congress will vote on a measure to ban 20-week abortions in the District of Columbia. Fortunately, since we have no representation in the Senate and one non-voting delegate in the House, this asshat gets to decide on taking our rights away for us.
• Continuing the glorious Republican tradition of making things RE-illegal (Michele Bachmann’s ban on gay marriages, NC’s amendment 1, etc.), Florida’s Ballot Initiative 6, up for vote in 2012, would roll back a woman’s right to privacy to “end public funding of abortions” (…which was taken care of 3 DECADES ago).
• Georgia passed the infamous “women as livestock” law based on the completely-false-only-supported-by-not-even-God-because-it’s-definitely-not-in-the-Bible notion that fetuses can feel pain at 20 weeks. Because if farmers have to “deliver calves, dead or alive” why shouldn’t broodmare-women have to do the same? This bill provides NO exclusions for rape, incest, or a woman’s emotional or mental condition. Suck it up, bitch, and birth that dead baby.
• Kansas is waiting on their Senate for the “refusal clause” bill, which would allow doctors to LIE to women about birth defects and withhold cancer treatments for mothers in the interest of saving the fetus.
• Mississippi signed into law a bill that will in all likelihood put the last remaining abortion provider in the state out of business. Their reasoning? The clinic doesn’t have admitting privileges at a hospital. The reason they don’t have those privileges? Because they don’t refer enough cases to qualify. The clinic is literally being punished for not jeopardizing the lives of enough women. Pro-life enough for you?
• Missouri started all the shit with the Blunt Amendment, which would allow employers to play Russian Roulette with women's health care options. Despite the fact that the Supreme Court case Unemployment Division v. Smith already decided that religious beliefs do not preclude you from following an otherwise-legitimate law, these people really think their religious beliefs entitle them to completely ignore the 14th amendment. 
• On June 12, North Dakota will vote on a measure that gives employers the right to deny women birth control coverage for “religious reasons.” You know what’s not a choice? Ovarian cancer. You know what is a choice? Your ignorant religious beliefs. If they can deny us medical care for religious reasons, why can’t they deny us the right to vote for religious reasons? Oh right, they’re working on it.
• South Carolina passed a bill barring private insurers (yes, private) from covering abortions. How’s that for small government?
• South Dakota enacted a law requiring doctors to lie to women about the non-existent link between abortions and mental health issues. Fortunately, if you’re a Republican, scientific studies proving that there is no definite link between mental health issues and abortion can just be completely ignored.
• In Texas, Gov. Perry decided to exercise his states’ rights, y’all, to deny access to health care (not abortion services, just birth control, cancer screenings, etc. but really, let’s not split hairs…) for low-income women. I’ll say this again and again and again – NO FEDERAL MONEY IS USED TO FUND ABORTIONS – but Perry defunded the non-abortion-providing part of Planned Parenthood because he doesn’t like people who like things that he doesn’t like. So there.
• Utah just passed into law a 72 hour waiting period for abortions – the longest in the country. Because women are too stupid to a) know what an abortion is and b) make up their mind about it. Fortunately, we have the state to send us back to our rooms where we can sit and think about what dirty, immoral whores we are for wanting to access our Constitutional rights.
• Virginia managed to pass their medically-unnecessary pre-abortion ultrasound requirement, though those poor, idiotic ladies were thrown a bone and can “choose” not to have a transvaginal ultrasound. Does it bother anyone else that the state can run medical tests on us without our consent? Anyone? Bueller?
• Wisconsin rolled back their equal pay act, even though women currently earn 77 cents on the dollar to men. They also attempted to pass a bill recognizing "single parenthood" as a contributing factor of child abuse. Not too surprising, since they’re the home of Rep. Pridemore, who thinks women should just close their eyes and remember the good times while their husbands are beating them. Because nothing says family values than domestic violence and rape. 

In addition to this state-by-state fuckery, Congress has still not reauthorized the expired Violence Against Women Act, because Republicans truly believe that lesbian and transgendered women and Native American women are not the same as other women, and are not deserving of equal protection under the law.

And just for the fun of it, go ahead and re-read about the fact that Republicans want nothing to do with living children, and the fact that they want hungry school kids to pay for more tax breaks for the rich.

Is your not-quite-PC-even-if-you-shout-“economic issues!”-hatred-of-Obama still worth more than everything we stand to lose? Please, please consider the issues – particularly the ones most important to all women everywhere – before casting your vote this November. Because if the Republicans get their way, you may lose that right, too. 

Small victories

Finally some good news on the home front! Yesterday, judges in both Texas and Oklahoma reminded Republicans that acting like paternalistic, abusive fathers and trying to beat women into submission isn’t actually legal (unless you’re in Kansas…).

A federal judge in Texas ruled that Governor Perry’s move to defund Planned Parenthood was a violation of the first amendment. Since the part of the organization potentially being defunded is not the part that provides abortions, he was essentially punishing them for supporting an organization that performs abortions. News flash, Republicans: Sanctioning an organization just because it believes in something you don’t is not exactly small government. That would be… umm… what do you call it… oh, fascism.

Then, in Oklahoma, the OK Supreme Court ruled that the personhood amendment, which would give a fertilized egg the same rights as living, breathing, taxpaying, white, rich Republican men (and considerably more rights than those filthy baby-incubating women!) was clearly unconstitutional. In fact, they called it “repugnant to the Constitution of the United States.” Oooh, burn.

While these little glimmers of intelligence scattered across the country are encouraging, the fight isn’t over. Just since January 2012, there have been 944 pieces of legislation written/introduced that in some way seek to restrict women’s rights. A few small victories don’t mean these hateful extremists are going to give up.

But yay for baby steps (um, pun intended) forward! 

Starve the children to support the rich

Every day I’m confronted with so much asinine nonsense from the Republican party that it’s almost hard to choose what to write about.

Do I talk about the fact that Tennessee – a state that just approved teaching creationism in school and thinks hand-holding is a gateway sexual activity (if you cross the street holding your child’s hand, is that gateway incest?) – just passed a bill that essentially criminalizes miscarriages because the first time they passed a bill about assault of a pregnant woman, they didn’t know enough about pregnancy to get it right? Do I talk about the fact that homophobia is more important to Republicans than protecting women, as evidenced by the Violence Against Women Act debate?

Or how about the fact that Phil Bryant of Mississippi – he of the MS personhood debacle (props, MS, for voting that one down, sorry about your luck with your nutjob governor though…) – went on a tirade claiming that the sole aim of the Democratic party is to abort children? That doesn’t even make convoluted-Republican sense – doesn’t the Democratic party allegedly want more poor children because more young, poor people = more Democrats? Jesus, Republicans – at least get your hatemongering straight.  

But while I was stumbling through ThinkProgress.org, occasionally banging my head against my desk, I came across this: House GOP Would Kick 280,000 Children Off School Lunch Program To Protect Tax Cut For Millionaires.

This is why I'll never be a Republican.

As a Libertarian, I believe the role of the government is to protect its citizenship. Letting children starve in favor of tax cuts for the wealthy is not protecting anyone.

The Republicans claim to be a party of personal responsibility. I love that concept, but cutting off or restricting access to contraceptives, to basic health care, to abortions, to education and to domestic violence and rape crises hotlines is not encouraging anyone to become more personally responsible - it's denying them the tools to do so.

You want fewer children to receive free lunches? Make sure women have access to education and family planning methods so that they can determine how many children to have. Don’t force them to have more unwanted children, then punish those children for your religiously-based ignorance.

Whether or not you agree it’s the government’s place to feed children when their parents can’t do so, the solution is NOT to both reinforce and worsen the situation. Handouts are bad, so let’s make sure more people need them. What the fuckity-fuck? This is your idea of small government?  I think your logic is missing.

Violence Against Women Act

This week Congress is discussing reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, a bill introduced in 1993 (passed in 1994) that has decreased domestic violence by 67% as of 2010. For the first time in the Act’s history, there is Republican opposition to reauthorization.

Why would the We’re not waging a war on women, (we’re just trying to help them by taking away their autonomy and rights) Republicans suddenly oppose a no-brainer always-partisan-supported piece of legislation? Because it extends rights to women in domestic partnerships, and expands protections for Native American women and illegal immigrants who assist in the prosecution of their abuser. Don’t want those sneaky lesbians getting a toehold on equality…

Jeff Sessions (R – AL) said in a quote to the New York Times: “You think that’s possible? You think they might have put things in there we couldn’t support that maybe then they could accuse you of not being supportive of fighting violence against women?”

Those sneaky, sneaky Democrats. Trying to sneak some more rights for more people into their legislation. At least they’re not accusing you of supporting hate crimes against gays. Or of supporting the building of the Berlin wall a bigger fence between the US and Mexico. Or of opposing stem cell research. Or of opposing the right of a gay person to serve on the Supreme Court or in the military. Or of supporting the KKK except for their unfortunate pot-smoking habit. Or of calling the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) "un-American" and "Communist-inspired." Yes, fortunately Sessions has a lovely record on equality and tolerance, so we can all feel comfortable taking his word…

Contrary to Sessions’ paranoid ramblings (and lets be fair, the opinions of the other 7 idiots Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee), an expanded VAWA doesn’t make that evil gay marriage legal, it doesn’t allow more illegal immigrants to sneak across the borders and it doesn’t … really? I can’t even come up with a convoluted Republican justification for denying protections to Native American women. Are they black magicky witches or something?

Even if you don’t agree with a woman’s lifestyle or personal sex life, violence against her is NEVER acceptable, and cannot be condoned by allowing VAWA to lapse. The Republicans are very explicitly stating that lesbian and transgendered women and Native American women are not the same as other women, and are not deserving of equal protection under the law. For a little bit of political gamesmanship, women’s lives will once again be in increased danger.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again – as a woman, a vote for a Republican this election season is a vote for your own enforced servitude.  

The Republican version of the bill doesn’t exist yet, though there have been promises made that one is in the works. Let’s just assume it’ll be called the Violence Against White Christian Women Who Already Know Their Place Act. 

Because I'm not controversial enough: Late term abortions

I’ve always been pro-choice/pro-women’s-freedom, but I was at one point opposed to late-term abortions. Why? Because I didn’t know the facts. I thought late term abortions occurred because women were too stupid/fickle to make the decision earlier. I bought into the so-called pro-life movement’s claim that there were these awful, barbaric women out there deliberately waiting until they were 6 months along before having a nearly-viable fetus brutally destroyed.

The truth is that only 1.3% (CDC, 2011) of abortions occur after 20 weeks, and these are usually the situations that deserve the most compassion and the most respect for the difficult and painful choices a woman sometimes has to make. Though there are no reliable statistics for why women choose to have late-term abortions, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) cites “illnesses of women and fetal anomalies” as major factors.

Of course, Georgia and, y’know, the entire federal government are working to remove women from the equation. On April 2, Georgia passed a bill affectionately referred to the “Women as Livestock” bill. Rep. Terry England famously stated that if livestock have to "deliver calves, dead or alive," then a woman carrying a dead fetus after 20 weeks, or one not expected to survive, should have to do so as well. Because if money/technology prevent farmers from showing compassion to animals, why should a government full of men have to respect the basic human rights of women? Naturally, the bill does not include exemptions for the woman’s health, rape or incest. In Georgia, they love their incest.

On October 13, 2011, the US House voted 251 to 170 to pass a bill that prohibits hospitals that receive federal funds (not the abortion-funding kind, those don’t exist, as I’ve pointed out before) cannot perform a late-term abortion, even if it is necessary to save a woman’s life. The bill also removes the requirement that hospitals without the facilities to perform an abortion transfer those women who need life-saving abortions to a different provider. Women can literally be forced to die on the floor, rather than be provided with a life-saving, still-legal and medically-necessary procedure.

These are the precedents we’re allowing to be set. In the name of “religion” and “unborn rights.”

Another JAMA article states that “other risk factors include young age, low educational attainment, having had a sexually transmitted disease, and ambivalence about the decision to abort.” Oddly enough, the restrictions and limitations Republicans have enacted to discourage abortions (abstinence-only education, requirements to visit ‘crisis centers,’ coercion through forced ultrasounds, etc.) actually contribute to later-term abortions. Go figure.

An abortion position paper from Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada very succinctly states the point that everyone here seems to miss:

Abortion opponents target rare cases of late term abortion, describing it in horrific detail, to evoke an emotional response in listeners. Their ultimate goal is to restrict all abortion rights. What these lobbyists strategically fail to mention, however, is that banning late term abortions would force women pregnant with dying fetuses to give birth at great risk to their own health, undermining both the rights of women and the medical authority of doctors.

Late term abortions are more heart-rending, yes, because the fetus is further developed, but the numbers show that women are not selfishly waiting until the last possible minute and then heartlessly deciding to murder an innocent baby. These are medical decisions made by women and their health care providers – legislators have no right to be involved in those decisions. Access to basic health care and human rights is even more important when the woman’s life is actually in danger. 

Champion of Unintended Irony

In an apparent attempt to wrest the title of Champion of Unintended Irony from Michelle Bachmann, Mitt Romney declared that poor women should be required to work outside the home or lose Temporary Assistance for Needy Families [TANF] benefits.

Because only rich women should be afforded the “choice” to become trophy wives and put their hard-earned managerial skills to use bossing around the domestic help, Romney stated "even if you have a child 2 years of age, you need to go to work."

While I don’t in theory disagree with the idea of having to work to earn benefits, it just seems a wee bit contradictory coming from the camp that saw their opportunity and went for the jugular when someone implied being a stay-at-home-mom wasn’t much work.

So which is it, Mitt? Is being a stay-at-home-mom one of the toughest jobs? Or not work at all? Are these women the backbone of our society? Or worthless dregs with no dignity who need to be catapulted out into the almost-non-existent job market? Or is this maybe, just maybe, yet another example of the classist, racist and misogynistic policies that currently define the Republican party?  

What about if we just ensured that those women had the education and opportunity to avoid having those children in the first place, so they could work, improve their situation, and hopefully be ready and able to financially care for children later on?

Or is logic something we’re not allowed to discuss?

Looks like you should have stuck to your policy of deferring to Ann on all the “women-related” issues, Mittens. 

Living women and children matter too

The Oklahoma personhood bill currently sitting on Republican governor Mary Fallin's desk has wording that states embryos/zygotes/fetuses have all the same rights and privileges of other citizens from the "moment of conception until birth."

After birth, of course, the black ones, the female ones, the Jewish ones, the Muslim ones, the gay ones, the Hispanic ones, the poor ones... they no longer have quite the same rights.

According to the Children's Defense Fund, the rate of child poverty increased 28% between 2000 and 2009. 15.5 million children lived in poverty in 2009, an increase of nearly 4 million from 2000. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reports an average of 800,000 abortions in the US per year. Multiply 800,000 by the 9 year period from 2000 to 2009, and you get 7.2 million additional births.

Now many of these babies may not have survived on their own, due to illness, genetic disease, etc., and many may have been accepted, adopted and loved, but assuming just half of them ended up as live births living in poverty, you add an additional 3.6 million children starving and going without adequate shelter, clothes and education. That almost doubles the increase in the poverty rate.

Are those really the rights we want to support? The right to be forgotten about and trampled on by a government that thinks women are livestock and born children are invisible? The right to be oppressed, treated like second class citizens, denied education about and access to contraception, and then be punished for being herded like cattle onto the only path the Republicans made available?

The Republicans are no longer conservative or 'small government' in any way, shape or form. They are a religious party carrying out a dangerous Crusade against the American public. We have to keep fighting...

Clarification

My fiancé [inadvertently, I think] helped me clarify a point I was trying to make in my last post and in my discussion with my friend. Yes, I understand and agree with Voltaire’s quote: “I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death your right to say it.” But I also agree that it comes with another quote of his, from Dictionnaire Philosophique: “We have a natural right to make use of our pens as of our tongue, at our peril, risk and hazard.”

Peril, risk and hazard. There is danger in some forms of “free” speech, and we know this, because we have laws in place about libel and slander and posting on facebook that you’re going to blow up a school. Using free speech to express an opinion – however misguided I may believe it to be – is perfectly acceptable and an absolute right. Using that same speech to strip away my humanity and my basic rights, however, is where the line gets drawn.

On July 17, 1980, the United States signed the treaty set forth by the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). Among other things, “CEDAW protects a woman's equal right to life, health, and to decide on the number and spacing of her children. The full protection of these rights requires the removal of obstacles in access to abortion services, and will also require the state to provide services in some circumstances. The United States is already bound by international human rights commitments in this regard through its ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and through its membership in the Organization of American States.”

If we have already decided that this is a basic human right, why is it now ok to allow one vocal minority to try to rip it away by force? Can we repeatedly make the argument that slavery is beneficial and force all black people to only engage in unpaid manual labor? Is it not enough that we’ve already heard this argument and already dismissed it as invalid?

Isn’t part of what makes us a developed, first world democracy the fact that we protect the basic human rights of ALL of our citizens? (Except the GLBT ones, of course, but that’s for another debate.) Aren’t they considered basic human rights because they are inviolable and cannot be denied?

I think that there are certain minimum rights that you cannot re-negotiate or sneakily legislate away. You can add rights, but you cannot strip them.

You can argue until you’re blue in the face that two cells meeting and falling in fertilized love somehow equals a person, but what you can’t argue is that my right to life ends because of those two cells.

You can argue that Aryan Germans are the superior race, but you can’t argue that all Jews need to be eradicated because of that.

You can argue until the peril, risk and hazard associated with free speech make you a danger to the rights and lives of others.

You are free to swing your fist as much as you want, but your right to swing ends –say it with me now – where my nose begins. Similarly, you are free to swing your asinine pseudo-religious opinions around all you want, but that right ends where it jeopardizes my rights, my health and my life.

And you certainly can’t hijack a democratic government (I’m looking at you, ALEC and Personhood USA and all your cronies) and legislate your vicious, deceitful hatemongering into law.

I don’t know how we stop this awful freight train to hell we’re currently strapped to, but we have to do it. We cannot continue to legitimize arguments that deny women basic rights. We cannot sit idly by while 38 states currently have some sort of right-restricting ‘personhood’ bill on the books or in the works. Women are dying, right now, across the US, because a bunch of religious zealots think the Constitution is crap and we don’t deserve basic human rights.

This is not an academic exercise – our rights and our very freedom are under attack and we have to keep fighting. So I’m going to keep writing, keep blogging, keeping shouting at the top of my lungs to defend what’s mine, and I hope you’ll do the same.  

Your argument is no longer valid

I had a really interesting discussion with a friend of mine from college through Facebook comments in response to an article I posted about Oklahoma’s insidious and dangerous new personhood bill.

I still respect this friend, even though he’s potentially been mind-raped by the misleading rhetoric of the right-wing Evangelical pro-life debate, and I respect his right to make his own choice on the matter about whether to keep or abort his mistaken notions. Would that we all had that same freedom…

He actually made it [somewhat] clear that, in this particular case, he doesn’t think the religious argument for jeopardizing women’s lives and health and freedom are quite compelling enough to justify a time-machine trip back to the 1800s, but it was an interesting exercise debating the cause.

Here are some highlights:

Angry Maiden: Regardless of what science does or does not prove, those beliefs that people are choosing are - in this case - religiously based. The whole point of this country and our constitution is to protect religious freedom and prevent religious oppression.

Friend: I agree -- but protecting religious freedom means not discriminating against people based on their motivations (which may be religious zealotry), but instead judging them solely based on the merit of their argumentation. Thus there could be (though I have yet to find) arguments based on religious beliefs that nonetheless have merit logically and secularly. Prevention of religious oppression means not letting people pass laws that are based on religious beliefs, but protecting religious freedom means hearing out arguments that are motivated by religion, but not based on religious beliefs.

Angry Maiden: Ok, so if someone believes based on religion that all black people should serve as slaves ('Bondservants, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in sincerity of heart, as to Christ' Ephesians 6:5-9), do we have a duty to hear out that argument over and over again? Or is it enough that we've already decided as a nation that we don't condone slavery and that -as a general rule- black people are not second class citizens? Because I dont think my basic human rights should be up for constant re-negotiation every time some radical evangelical decides the bible wants me back in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant.

Friend: I think we do have a duty to hear out any argument based on scientific or logical thought. I find it hard to believe that such an argument could be made that X people (no matter what X is) are inferior to Y people (no matter what Y is), but if someone has a (scientific or logically philosophical) argument for it, I do believe it is our duty to hear them out, every time. I think ultimately this is the same position as Voltaire's comment about free speech: we're only a free society if we support the right to expression and argumentation of groups with the most abhorrent beliefs.

Angry Maiden: But that argument gets made all the time. The crusades, Native Americans, slavery, Australia and the Aborigines, Ireland, the Amenian genocide, the Holocaust, Japanese internment camps... our government was set up with a system of checks and balances - specifically through the judiciary branch - to protect the rights of minorities who do frequently fall victim to these 'logical arguments.' I dont think you can have progress of any sort if you keep going back and revisiting dangerous and hate-filled attempts at subjugating parts of the population based on antiquated religious beliefs that have no place in government.

Friend: Well, again, I don't think it's reasonable to consider arguments based on religion -- but I also don't think it's reasonable to dismiss arguments just because we suspect they are based on motivations that stem from religious beliefs.

Angry Maiden: I guess I just refuse to believe that an argument that would strip away the rights of a group of individuals could possibly have merit worth considering. I took a class on argumentation theory and one of the biggest things I remember from the class was the idea that in order to have a valid argument (2), both parties had to agree on a starting point. For me, and for us as a country, I dont think there can be a starting point that assumes that minority groups' civil rights are up for debate and renegotiation.

Their argument is not valid, because we refuse to accept the terms that our rights are up for discussion – that they are something that can be bartered and restricted and eventually aborted late-term.

I’m going to reiterate something I’ve said before and something Soraya Chemaly stated beautifully in a HuffPost blog: this is not about religion, it’s about freedom and human rights. It’s not about saving babies, it’s about saving women and all Americans (yes, even the ones not yet born) from the tyranny of religion.

We need to change the rhetoric. Neo-conservative Republi-nazis are not “pro-life,” they are “pro-women’s-slavery.” We are not pro-choice, we are pro-freedom.

I didn’t vote Democrat in the last election (Libertarian – bet that’s a shocker, huh?) but I plan to for the first time ever in this coming election. I just can’t take the chance.  

As much as there are Democratic policies I disagree with, I value my life and my freedom more than tax breaks for Mitt Romney’s golfing buddies. 

From a former fetus

Dear Republicans,

This may come as a shock to you - seeing as how I grew up to be a woman - but I, too, was once a fetus.

Before I was a meddlesome, opinionated slut who just wants you to get your grubby paws off my health care and basic human rights, I, too, was a tiny cluster of cells, imbued with all the rights and dignities you’d like to subscribe to current fetuses.

So why do you think I no longer deserve those rights? Now that I’m no longer a fetus, why do I no longer have the right to life? The right to dignity and autonomy? Why do you no longer recognize me as a person? Because if you did, you would understand that I have a right to be free from your religious oppression and your antiquated patriarchal bullshit. You would understand that I have a right to access legal, necessary medical care.

When I was just a wee embryo, you were concerned about my well-being. About my existence. The potential I would bring with me into the world. Now that I’m here, you just want me back in the kitchen.

Where did we go wrong? Was it when my spermatozoan failed to contain a Y chromosome? I do apologize for that, but I fear I would be remiss if I did not point out that you yourself would not exist if your mother’s two X chromosomes hadn’t made her female and therefore capable of bearing a child.

I wish we could go back to those days. Back to when I paid no taxes, voted in no elections and had no need to continuously fight for the rights I’ve already been granted.

You loved me as a fetus, now love me as a fully-formed, educated and worthwhile woman. And for fuck’s sake, stop trying to take away my rights. They are not open to negotiation.

Former fetus-love,

Angry Maiden 

Me v. World

An interesting discussion occurred on a Jezebel comment thread the other day, surrounding the pro-life/pro-choice/abortion debate. Each side claimed to be open to debate, yet every statement dissolved into attacks and accusations.

Obviously, this issue is hugely polarizing, and a matter of life and death, quite literally, but there’s something more preventing any sort of productive discussion on the topic.

I took a class on argumentation, as part of my Masters coursework. One of the biggest things I took from the class was that there can be no legitimate argument or debate unless both sides can agree upon the initial terms.

So for example, imagine you are planning to paint a wall. You decide to consult a friend/partner/spouse/whomever on the color choice. They don’t like the color you’ve selected because it’s too dark/light/neutral/aggressive/whatever. That’s fine. But they also don’t think the wall exists.

You can’t argue over what color to paint a wall if both parties can’t even agree that there is a wall, much less that said wall is in need of painting.

Maybe that example seems a little facetious – afterall, a wall is a wall, right?

But the point is, our starting points are different, and those are what we have to defend and define in order to make any sort of headway in the legal discourse surrounding the topic of abortion in the US.

The biggest starting point that has to be understood is that this is not an issue of religion. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution specifically states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” So if we’re talking about this in the legal sense, religion cannot be involved, because to favor or disfavor religious discourse would be unconstitutional. Of course, that’s assuming you recognize the right of the Constitution to govern lawmaking in the US. Let’s just assume that one, I hope.

This is not (and should not be) problematic for religious individuals, because affirming abortion does not mean forcing individuals to have abortions. There is a difference. And mandating the religious beliefs of one group over the religious or a-religious beliefs of another group would be constitutional violation (see above). And yes, the Free Exercise Clause (“…or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”) is important, too. In fact, the right of taxpayers not to have to support abortion services because it *might* be against their religion is already federally protected.

The Hyde Amendment prevents any federal funds from being used for abortion services. That means those who worry that their religious freedom is being threatened by the taxes they pay going to fund the whorish and amoral behavior of slutty women nationwide can stop worrying.

Then, of course, we have the life issue. This gets even more tricky. Again, we have to be careful of religion. Because that has to be the accepted starting point – that anything that begins with “according to the Bible” or “God says…” is not allowed.

So when two cells meet, a sperm and an egg, is that life? I’m not a scientist, but I have some vague idea that if you took those two cells out of a woman’s body and set them on a table, they would not magically become a person. This is an important distinction. Maybe it would be life, but it would not be a person according to our legal understanding of the term. Those cells would not be capable of breathing, thinking, acting – not as they were. Without the intervention of science, or another person (the mother’s body), those two cells are never going to grow up to pay taxes, vote, or serve in the army.

Any legislation that seeks to call the combination of two cells a person (I’m looking at you, Oklahoma, Mississippi, etc.) has to be viewed with a good deal of suspicion. At the very least because it’s an obvious violation of the “no religion in legal issues” principle.

I know there is a lot more to this issue but I didn’t set out to write a treatise, and I didn’t set out to solve the abortion debate. I just wanted to maybe put together something to better help people understand how an informed debate about abortion could be started. We have to go back to the beginning if we have any hopes of ever having valid discourse about such a highly-contentious topic.

Feel free to leave your thoughts – just no personal attacks. <3 

A glimpse of our future?

I woke up this morning and opened my computer, prepared to be outraged over more domestic attacks against women and our rights. Representative Alan Dick (c’mon dude, it’s almost too easy…) didn’t disappoint, but what really caught my attention was the story about the Moroccan girl being forced to marry her rapist.

And you know what my very first thought was, when I saw the story posted on Facebook? ‘Jesus fuck, don’t give the Republicans any more ideas.’

In Morocco, article 475 of their penal code allows a rapist to escape prosecution if his victim is a minor and he ‘agrees’ to marry her. Shockingly, the marriage didn’t end well for the 16 year old girl in this story – she was raped, forced into marriage, beaten repeatedly to the point of drinking rat poison to end her own life, and was then dragged by her hair through the streets until she died.  

But at least her ‘husband’ is absolved of guilt. I mean, if she hadn’t been such a slut and provoked him in the first place…

Stories like this make me want to take my uterus and my ovaries and my dog-eared copy of Atlas Shrugged and fly off to the fictional Galt’s Gulch, where I can escape the farcicality of it all and watch the rest of the world launch itself off the edge and straight into hell.

Because in a society where just the most recent challenges to our rights and our freedoms include restricted access to birth control, reduced health care services for lower income women, transvaginal rape by the government, and the most recent Dick-ish move, suggested permission slips from a woman’s owner baby-daddy if she wants to access a legal, medical procedure, how far, really, are we from a situation like Morocco?

I really wouldn’t be surprised if there were some Republican men out there going ‘huh, well maybe not in the case of minors, but if we just had rapists marry their victim, she’d be provided for, so she’d have to shut up, and he’d be ‘punished.’ Problem solved…!’

Though the indignity of being forced to defend over and over what is already mine, and what is furthermore unassailable for the male half of the population, makes my stomach churn, I will continue to do so, because for now, I can.