If the consequences of pregnancy were strictly limited to the child bearing women I would agree. Unfortunately that’s not the case. Sperm donors will be legally responsible for the welfare of their progeny for 18 years, and possibly emotionally entangle for the rest of their lives. Beyond the parents, society has its own stake in the choice of the mother. The creation of dysfunctional family units by unqualified parents potentially adds additional strain on resources dedicated to social welfare and order.Fraggle Rocker said:
Redux: Rape, Abortion, and "Personhood"
- Thread starter Tiassa
- Start date
- Status
by that logic, your wife can kindly fuck off (in a flying fashion or otherwise) in lieu of Gianna Jessen or Melissa Ohden (unless your wife also happens to have survived an attempted abortion whilst in the womb).Actually it seems that it happened to her, not you. Unless she asks you for help, just stay out of it. This is a woman's issue and it should stay that way.
As my wife once said, "I'll give a flying fuck what men think about abortion, the first time one of you assholes gets pregnant."
I always thought it was strictly an American phenomenon.
IOW its a common ploy in these discussions to artificially reduce the scope of language (or "who" is actually involved) in order to forward a political agenda.
:shrug:
As sympathetic as I am ....
Then either she, or Mr. Fraggle,ought to qualify the statement. Indeed, the world seems to be passing this point by; in recent years I have only heard it from Mrs. Fraggle via her husband. Feminism, institutionally, seems to have figured out this particular detail and moved on.
It's the same thing that I got into it with a local columnist about:
Lindy West's problem is that she deliberately throws monumental temper tantrums in order to complain about people who note she's pitching a fit. That's the whole thing about the shrieking harridan. She's a dinousaur, playing out her own sexual-empowerment fantasy regardless of what's happening in the world. And this absolutist feminism is a dinosaur, too. Maybe someday we'll need to dust it off again, and put it to its proper use. But for now, if feminists want to fight fire with gasoline, I don't want to hear a damn thing about how hot it is or why the fire won't go out.
Absolutist feminism a toxic anachronism that, presently, has no useful function. Truth told, I'd rather civilization keep moving in a direction that will leave that kind of gender-divided society in the past.
Trippy said:
Then either she, or Mr. Fraggle,ought to qualify the statement. Indeed, the world seems to be passing this point by; in recent years I have only heard it from Mrs. Fraggle via her husband. Feminism, institutionally, seems to have figured out this particular detail and moved on.
It's the same thing that I got into it with a local columnist about:
The War of the Sexes is not split into two mythical sides. Rather, it is a fragmented, nasty tangle of sentiment, comprehension, and confusion. There are, of course, the avatars: The Noble Woman, to the one, and the Evil Oppresssive Man, to the other. But for the male side of the equation, allow me, please, to explain something that, frankly, I'm tired of trying to explain to people who don't want to hear it.
Among men, there are two sympathetic groups you're alienating. One is that amorphous collection of males from all walks of society who don't understand the issues, don't want to understand the issues, would like to conduct themselves reasonably well in society, and would someone please explain the rules to them without sounding like a chattering rabbit on cocaine? The other is composed of those of us who, for various reasons choose to ignore the demands of some among our female neighbors that we stay the hell out of it.
With the first group, your monodimensional self-pity plays very poorly, as it tends to reinforce what those men hear from so many of their brothers. The shrieking harridan, indeed.
With the second, though, such pathetic whining is viewed as counterproductive. That is to say, when you provide such a distinctive example for the Rush Limbaughs of the world to denounce as “feminazis”, you're not helping anyone. It is often very hard to make the case to our fellow men that the misogynists of society are actually misogynists. Because the two main groups we communicate that to are the outright misogynists—who believe themselves somehow noble—and the confused fence-sitters who are much more willing to accept simplistic arguments about shrieking harridans than untangle the Gordian rats' nests of sociopolitical subtlety.
Among men, there are two sympathetic groups you're alienating. One is that amorphous collection of males from all walks of society who don't understand the issues, don't want to understand the issues, would like to conduct themselves reasonably well in society, and would someone please explain the rules to them without sounding like a chattering rabbit on cocaine? The other is composed of those of us who, for various reasons choose to ignore the demands of some among our female neighbors that we stay the hell out of it.
With the first group, your monodimensional self-pity plays very poorly, as it tends to reinforce what those men hear from so many of their brothers. The shrieking harridan, indeed.
With the second, though, such pathetic whining is viewed as counterproductive. That is to say, when you provide such a distinctive example for the Rush Limbaughs of the world to denounce as “feminazis”, you're not helping anyone. It is often very hard to make the case to our fellow men that the misogynists of society are actually misogynists. Because the two main groups we communicate that to are the outright misogynists—who believe themselves somehow noble—and the confused fence-sitters who are much more willing to accept simplistic arguments about shrieking harridans than untangle the Gordian rats' nests of sociopolitical subtlety.
Lindy West's problem is that she deliberately throws monumental temper tantrums in order to complain about people who note she's pitching a fit. That's the whole thing about the shrieking harridan. She's a dinousaur, playing out her own sexual-empowerment fantasy regardless of what's happening in the world. And this absolutist feminism is a dinosaur, too. Maybe someday we'll need to dust it off again, and put it to its proper use. But for now, if feminists want to fight fire with gasoline, I don't want to hear a damn thing about how hot it is or why the fire won't go out.
Absolutist feminism a toxic anachronism that, presently, has no useful function. Truth told, I'd rather civilization keep moving in a direction that will leave that kind of gender-divided society in the past.
I understand your point, I'm not sure I agree with it entirely, I've had a shit weekend one way and another, and I don't really give enough of a fuck to try and argue the point.
I was just making the point that I've just, seemingly, always taken Mrs Fraggles comments in a different context to what you seem to have.
The Stakes We Play For
True, I'm being much harder on the point than I usually am, but of late I've found certain parts of the feminist issues frustrating. Take West, for example. A chatterbox for The Stranger, a local weekly alternative tabloid; her writing is bombastic, flamboyant, entertaining, literate, and all those wonderful things that make The Stranger cool. But she's not actually that good of a journalist, and she knows it. "Feminism" is her alternate career path; her writing landed her a gig at Jezebel, and this is enough to get her a spot on Kamau Bell as an expert on gender relations.
The problem, of course, is that her feminism is a career path, not a matter of human dignity.
Once upon a time, I was happy enough to leave those one-liners alone; clearly, I understand the underlying point. But this sort of rhetoric, while certainly of some utility in the past, isn't really about "women" or "feminism" or "people" anymore; it's about the individual making the point.
It's not that the Lindy Wests or Mrs. Fraggles will chase me away from the issue, but when I hear this superficial, weathered rhetoric, my first response is to say, "Please stop making a woman's humanity that much more difficult for my daughter to attain."
Except I'm not feeling especially polite about it.
I need these people to stop making the problem worse.
Trippy said:
True, I'm being much harder on the point than I usually am, but of late I've found certain parts of the feminist issues frustrating. Take West, for example. A chatterbox for The Stranger, a local weekly alternative tabloid; her writing is bombastic, flamboyant, entertaining, literate, and all those wonderful things that make The Stranger cool. But she's not actually that good of a journalist, and she knows it. "Feminism" is her alternate career path; her writing landed her a gig at Jezebel, and this is enough to get her a spot on Kamau Bell as an expert on gender relations.
The problem, of course, is that her feminism is a career path, not a matter of human dignity.
Once upon a time, I was happy enough to leave those one-liners alone; clearly, I understand the underlying point. But this sort of rhetoric, while certainly of some utility in the past, isn't really about "women" or "feminism" or "people" anymore; it's about the individual making the point.
It's not that the Lindy Wests or Mrs. Fraggles will chase me away from the issue, but when I hear this superficial, weathered rhetoric, my first response is to say, "Please stop making a woman's humanity that much more difficult for my daughter to attain."
Except I'm not feeling especially polite about it.
I need these people to stop making the problem worse.
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
She said this many years ago, at a time when it seemed to both of us that the only men who spoke out on the issue, and had any power to affect legislation, were precisely the assholes who wished to overturn Roe v. Wade and return women to the days of having to travel to another country to get a safe, professional abortion. In particular, Catholic priests, who have never had intercourse (with a woman or an adult of either sex) and therefore did not have to worry about progeny, were (and still are) absolutely unforgivable assholes about it. If ever there was a demographic who should have their mouths stapled shut when they start talking about women's issues, it's the fucking goddamned priests.
Obviously I'm not the only citizen with a penis who supports abortion rights. But then and now, it was worth noting that if men were not allowed to weigh in on the subject, vote on it or filibuster against it, there would be no issue: abortion would be legal right up into the delivery room. It is overwhelmingly supported by female Americans. The only major female bloc of anti-abortion sentiment (fuck these confusing euphemisms "pro-life" and "pro-choice," you're either pro-abortion or anti-abortion) in the USA is Catholic women, and quite a few of them are just sitting out the discussion and voting their conscience rather than that of their phallocratic church hierarchy.
More men in America are opposed to abortion than women, for the obvious reason that to them pregnancy is an abstraction rather than nine months of hell followed, possibly, by a lifetime of hell.
I'll shut up if those assholes will.
You're obviously a wonderful father. But for every one of you, there are two others who, upon discovering that their daughters were pregnant, would insist that they carry the child to term, statistically lowering their GPAs, their probability of high-school graduation, their rate of university admission and graduation, their odds of ever being married for more than a year or two, and their lifetime income. Not to mention what it does to the poor babies when they start to grow up.
(bolding mine.)
Yeah, I've kinda noticed of late a number of posters, in a number of threads, throwing out some select quotes from second-, and even first-, wave feminist literature at though these were somehow representative of contemporary feminism, or even all of feminism. Don't know whether this is simply reflective of ignorance (weird that though, given that the vernacular seems pretty durned dated and the source text has usually got the date of publication right next to it), or just plain old extreme essentialist tendencies (which I suppose might also fall under the rubric of ignorance?); regardless, it's just kinda silly--and wholly ineffectual to boot.
Speaking as a woman I cannot imagine that most women would support abortion being legal right up to the delivery room or even if the fetus is viable. Women bear at least the responsibility of getting an abortion early in their pregnancies as abortions can be readily had in most states. Even if their states make it difficult to get an abortion, women have several months to make arrangements to go elsewhere. Will there be exceptions? Of course, but these are rare and not the rule.
Springboarding
A basement, perhaps? After paying a friend to beat her into miscarriage?
2010, Utah:
With TRAP laws in Mississippi and other states, the object is to prevent poor women who cannot travel from obtaining abortion and other women's medical services. And sometimes it works. In Utah, yes, it is entirely comprehensible how a seventeen year-old girl unable to find a way to make the 173-mile trip to the nearest abortion provider and then pay for the procedure might opt for a cheap substitute.
I know, I'm pulling out a big gun, there. Although at the moment Billie August's 1986 film Twist and Shout (a film that truly verges on greatness) comes to mind, with its gripping dramatization of a coathanger abortion in Copenhagen, 1964.
Yes. I live in a place where the nearest provider is probably fifteen minutes away in traffic. But I am uncertain how some poor women in other states are supposed to get the time off work, travel possibly as much as two states away, undergo a medical procedure, and return to her regular life. For some, there is always a pink slip, or an insufficient paycheck, hanging over their heads. So, while, yes, there are women who can certainly take certain responsibilities to terminate early, but it isn't a general rule we can apply. Additionally, with states pushing new abortion prohibitions that in many cases preclude detection of birth defects, and in others can preclude awareness of pregnancy, I'm not certain how far that notion of taking responsibility goes.
As we know, though, late term abortions, in addition to being rare, are also emotionally fraught, as the decision is most often forced by other circumstances. That is, while many people seem to think women casually decide to get knocked up and then terminate—or what's that sick masculinist fantasy about the woman aborting at the last minute in order to spite the father?—the late-term abortions are usually forced by circumstances that challenge, if not grind up and spit out people's morals and emotions.
____________________
Notes:
Aguilar, Rose. "Utah Governor Signs Controversial Law Charging Women and Girls With Murder for Miscarriages". AlterNet. March 8, 2010. AlterNet.org. July 7, 2013. http://www.alternet.org/story/14595..._women_and_girls_with_murder_for_miscarriages
Wilmington, Michael. "Movie Review : A Dark Vision In 'Twist And Shout'". Los Angeles Times. August 22, 1986. Articles.LATimes.com. July 7, 2013. http://articles.latimes.com/1986-08-22/entertainment/ca-17034_1_movie-review
Quinnsong said:
A basement, perhaps? After paying a friend to beat her into miscarriage?
2010, Utah:
The original bill, which passed the Utah House and Senate a few weeks ago, attracted widespread condemnation and even international attention. But organizations like the ACLU and Planned Parenthood say most media coverage is missing the larger issue.
“Everyone's focusing on the bill, but no one is talking about how we got here,” Melissa Bird, executive director of the Planned Parenthood Action Council in Utah, told AlterNet. “I'm thrilled the media have picked this up, but we need to start from the beginning.”
Starting from the beginning means revisiting the case of a 17-year-old girl from Vernal, Utah, who was seven months pregnant last May, when she paid 21-year-old Aaron Harrison $150 to beat her up after her boyfriend threatened to leave her if she didn't terminate the pregnancy.
(Aguilar)
“Everyone's focusing on the bill, but no one is talking about how we got here,” Melissa Bird, executive director of the Planned Parenthood Action Council in Utah, told AlterNet. “I'm thrilled the media have picked this up, but we need to start from the beginning.”
Starting from the beginning means revisiting the case of a 17-year-old girl from Vernal, Utah, who was seven months pregnant last May, when she paid 21-year-old Aaron Harrison $150 to beat her up after her boyfriend threatened to leave her if she didn't terminate the pregnancy.
(Aguilar)
With TRAP laws in Mississippi and other states, the object is to prevent poor women who cannot travel from obtaining abortion and other women's medical services. And sometimes it works. In Utah, yes, it is entirely comprehensible how a seventeen year-old girl unable to find a way to make the 173-mile trip to the nearest abortion provider and then pay for the procedure might opt for a cheap substitute.
I know, I'm pulling out a big gun, there. Although at the moment Billie August's 1986 film Twist and Shout (a film that truly verges on greatness) comes to mind, with its gripping dramatization of a coathanger abortion in Copenhagen, 1964.
Yes. I live in a place where the nearest provider is probably fifteen minutes away in traffic. But I am uncertain how some poor women in other states are supposed to get the time off work, travel possibly as much as two states away, undergo a medical procedure, and return to her regular life. For some, there is always a pink slip, or an insufficient paycheck, hanging over their heads. So, while, yes, there are women who can certainly take certain responsibilities to terminate early, but it isn't a general rule we can apply. Additionally, with states pushing new abortion prohibitions that in many cases preclude detection of birth defects, and in others can preclude awareness of pregnancy, I'm not certain how far that notion of taking responsibility goes.
As we know, though, late term abortions, in addition to being rare, are also emotionally fraught, as the decision is most often forced by other circumstances. That is, while many people seem to think women casually decide to get knocked up and then terminate—or what's that sick masculinist fantasy about the woman aborting at the last minute in order to spite the father?—the late-term abortions are usually forced by circumstances that challenge, if not grind up and spit out people's morals and emotions.
____________________
Notes:
Aguilar, Rose. "Utah Governor Signs Controversial Law Charging Women and Girls With Murder for Miscarriages". AlterNet. March 8, 2010. AlterNet.org. July 7, 2013. http://www.alternet.org/story/14595..._women_and_girls_with_murder_for_miscarriages
Wilmington, Michael. "Movie Review : A Dark Vision In 'Twist And Shout'". Los Angeles Times. August 22, 1986. Articles.LATimes.com. July 7, 2013. http://articles.latimes.com/1986-08-22/entertainment/ca-17034_1_movie-review
I'm not disagreeing with you here, but even so: in a nation for which health care insurance is far from universal, and even when one can avail oneself to such, abortions and such are seldom covered for reasons entirely idiotic and misogynistic; thus the cost (including travel, time off work--unpaid, etc.) is prohibitive for many. Then there are logistical concerns: having traversed the U.S. innumerable times, via varied modes of transport (bicycle, hitchhiking, the occassional bus or train), I've found that it can be rather a challenge to get anywhere in the nether regions if one hasn't got a means of transport--we ain't big on public transport, or public/community anything for that matter. I can imagine these factors compounded being overwhelming for some, and I suspect that many of the later term abortions can be explained by such.
Also, apologies for being slightly incoherent: I'm having some aphasiac issues at present.
I had no doubt in my mind when I wrote what I did that you would be all over it and that you would bring out the Big Guns Tiassa. But I stand by what I said, that as a rule most women can get abortions early on in their pregnancies. I do see where as more states become more restrictive in their abortion laws(banning after 6 weeks) that getting access would become a definite problem.
The example of the 17 year old in Utah is just heartbreaking, but I feel her reasons for the abortion at such a late stage and how she chose to get rid of the fetus was cruel and that she might me be mentally unstable. I mean think about it she put her life and a viable human at that point, at risk for some jerk. Seven months she had to get a ride Tiassa. Just not feeling too much empathy here.
Late term abortions are rare and thankfully so. I totally agree that it must be an exceptionally difficult time for any woman. Gee, if you knew how much I hate the idea that men think women would do this out of spite, well really it is not something I can even fathom.
Abortion is necessary, but damn
I do love me some babies.
Bells
Staff member
What woman in her right mind would wait until the moment of delivery or even in the 30+ weeks before she decides to have an abortion if the foetus is viable and she just changed her mind about having a child? You don't wait that long to decide you don't want to have a child anymore. Women who have late term abortions don't do it for cosmetic or selfish reasons but usually because they have discovered there is something wrong with the foetus or with their own health, which would make it dangerous (or painful to the foetus) to continue with the pregnancy. And usually such discoveries are not made until after the legal cut off stage for abortions have passed. Having such arbitrary laws put lives at risk.
I am afraid I am not making myself clear I am not disagreeing at all with what you are saying Bells. I was responding indirectly to Fraggle's comment about women overwhelmingly supporting abortion up until delivery. I should have prefaced my comments and said that most women would not use that option of abortion right up to delivery with your comments.
To Pick Some Nits
I don't specifically disagree, and in truth I was more springboarding from your post.
But I would note of the Utah case—
—that the circumstances upon which she was basing her decision apparently also changed at that late time.
And, yes, in terms of being seventeen and pregnant in rural Utah, with the relationship that would be a shield or flight from the hatred and criticism she would face in such a community suddenly abandoning her, I don't think it's at all unreasonable to consider psychological issues.
(We might also note that some women "never stood a chance" insofar as Utah is a place where people are comfortable with the idea that their children are more likely to contract chlamydia than chicken pox. And why are they comfortable with that outcome? Because the idea of young people having an education in sexual issues offends the good people of Utah.)
Quinnsong said:
I don't specifically disagree, and in truth I was more springboarding from your post.
But I would note of the Utah case—
—that the circumstances upon which she was basing her decision apparently also changed at that late time.
And, yes, in terms of being seventeen and pregnant in rural Utah, with the relationship that would be a shield or flight from the hatred and criticism she would face in such a community suddenly abandoning her, I don't think it's at all unreasonable to consider psychological issues.
(We might also note that some women "never stood a chance" insofar as Utah is a place where people are comfortable with the idea that their children are more likely to contract chlamydia than chicken pox. And why are they comfortable with that outcome? Because the idea of young people having an education in sexual issues offends the good people of Utah.)
Last edited:
I don't think that's true.
From Gallup:
Code:
Women's views on abortion:
Should abortion always be legal, legal only at certain times/under certain circumstances, or never be legal?
Year "Abortion always legal" "Abortion sometimes legal" "Abortion never legal"
1975 22% 54% 21%
1980 23% 55% 20%
1990 34% 48% 15%
1995 28% 54% 16%
2000 28% 51% 19%
2005 26% 52% 21%Hmm. Then am I pro or anti abortion? I am very much against abortion in most cases (it is a terrible solution to an unwanted pregnancy) but think that choice should be up to a woman and her doctor.
Yes, I clearly see the point of your argument and that is why the parents and the state have culpability in her decision. Why it is not a Federal mandate that sex education and birth control be available to all teens in all states is plain ignorance. Look we have data that clearly shows that when we these things are made available to our youth the pregnancy rate drops and thus the abortion rate. Duh! I mean if the Repubs truly wanted to get rid of abortion or at least see a drop in abortion they would embrace this fact. But nooo, they would rather use the Bible as their educational tool and so here we are.
André Says ....
In the States
Wisconsin state Rep. André Jacque (R-De Pere), hopes to write personhood for the unborn in to the state constitution.
Mark Maley explains:
Interestingly—or perhaps not—Jacque's proposed amendment runs into the central question of what happens to a woman's rights when she becomes pregnant. The language of the amendment diregards the issue entirely, leaving unresolved the question of women as people.
Wisconsin joins several other states in pursuit of personhood constitutional amendments. North Dakota has passed such a law, and a movement is under way in Iowa. Still, though, state Sen. Glenn Grothman (R-West Bend) suggests, "The bill didn't go anywhere last year and I wouldn't expect it to go anywhere this year."
As a matter of procedure, amending Wisconsin's constitution can be tough; the amendment must pass both houses of the legislature in two consecutive sessions, and only then can it be put in front of voters. Meanwhile, Wisconsin Right to Life, said to be the state's largest anti-abortion operation, has declared its opposition, suggesting the amendment could work in favor of the pro-choice argument.
The amendment text:
So, yes, here comes the usual rhetoric. IUD, hormonal birth control, IVF, and embryonic research will all be on the block. And as Rachel Maddow noted of the recent Ohio anti-abortion ambush:
The same questions loom over Wisconsin.
It is always funny to me when people purporting to play a moderate role in this issue try to convince us that these sorts of concerns are somehow extreme. For all the opportunities conservatives have had over the years to clarify that they don't really mean banning hormonal birth control, intra-uterine devices, or IVF and other embryonic research, they simply refuse to.
And in this Wisconsin push, we see the same problem of enforcement; perhaps one thinks it is extreme to worry about the implications of miscarriages and irregular menstrual cycles, but this is how the law is written. And they've been doing it this way for years; they've had plenty of opportunities to fix this rhetorical shortcoming. That they have not undertaken that repair is very, very suggestive, if not outright indicative. The only way out is to admit that these laws never were about fetuses. The only way out is to accept that these laws always were about putting women back in their imagined proper place.
Trust him: André may not be a woman, but he knows what's best for women. Even better than women.
What does that mean? How does that work? Well, note the Jacque Amendment: "As applied to the right to life". This does not pertain to liberty or pursuit of happiness. Only life.
To the one, they're not really recognizing the unborn as "people", merely changing a definition in order to suit politics while refusing medical science. This is desperately cynical and political; it hasn't a damn thing to do with the fetuses, as we see by the fact that over a hundred thousand former fetuses in this country are left without proper homes or families, and these political activists and officeholders don't really want to "think about the children".
To the other, we'll see whether and who they start prosecuting for negligent homicide in cases of miscarriage. Certainly, some shouldn't be prosecuted, but others are certainly exposed. And as we've seen how conservative jurisdictions treat fetal homicide laws—ostensibly passed to protect pregnant women against domestic abuse and other violence but primarily and nearly exclusively deployed against women with mental health, addiction, or other issues of dysfunction—there is no reason to expect that this arbitrary standard of preborn "personhood" will follow a peculiarly independent path.
Furthermore, anti-abortion activists are making the same mistake Gov. Phil Bryant and fellow Republicans made in Mississippi when they proudly touted that their trap-law package was intended to end abortion in the state.
See, normally the activists and politicians couch their language somewhat, crafting sound bites about protecting women's health. You know, like, this isn't really about stopping abortion but making sure women who need such services get proper treatment and care. But Bryant and his cohort gleefully announced publicly that their law, which, like the Ohio package, included the admitting privileges paradox°, was intended to end the practice of abortion in Mississippi. And, yes, the federal judge who blocked the law included that in his decision. Certes, the idea that Pro-Life Wisconsin's legislative director should say, "The personhood amendment seeks to end abortion in Wisconsin, not to regulate or restrict it", is hardly the same as if he was one of the elected officials making it happen, but he certainly isn't helping the legal standing of the law after it is passed, signed, and hauled into court.
We see how low these people are willing to go. We've seen Republicans at the state level sack everything the national party wants people to believe: intrusive government, deceptive legislation, deliberate rushes to avoid scrutiny, and now they are celebrating publicly their commitment to passing unconstitutional laws without even a whiff of noble pretense.
And this is the problem: For all they wail that "children" aren't being heard in the abortion debate, one cannot help but notice the invisibility of women in the anti-abortion outlook.
Rep. Jacque and Mr. Sande can certainly tell women that nobody is thinking of the organisms growing inside them. You know, hush now, the men are speaking. But it's quite easy to say something like that about a circumstance one will never encounter in their own life.
And they're doing this all for what? To smack it to women like they deserve? Don't tell me this is about dignity; we see how good those folks aren't with the children once they're alive. And don't even try to tell me this is for women, since they're nothing more than boarding houses for newly-classified "people".
Oh, wait. They're not even that; after all, they're not paying for the room and board.
____________________
Notes:
° admitting privileges paradox — It's a popular trap for TRAP laws. Under the guise of ensuring proper care for women, the law demands that abortion providers have admitting privileges to a nearby hospital. The problem there is that abortion providers cannot usually get admitting privileges because abortion is too safe a procedure. That is, the doctors performing abortions do not refer enough patients to the hospital to warrant admitting privileges. In the Ohio budget package, Republicans even managed to work in a requirement that abortion providers arrange certain transfer agreements with local hospitals, and another that prohibited the hospitals from entering such agreements. The whole thing is a con. Why they keep doing this, though? It's hard to say. Perhaps they think that if they hit the federal courts enough with the same stupid laws, they'll happen onto a judge who will give them what they want on the basis of so many laws having been passed. No, really. Nobody knows.
Works Cited:
Maley, Mark. "Pro-Life Groups Launch New Push for 'Personhood' Amendment". Greenfield Patch. July 14, 2013. Greenfield.Patch.com. July 15, 2013. http://greenfield.patch.com/groups/...oups-launch-new-push-for-personhood-amendment
Wisconsin State Assembly. "2013 Assembly Joint Resolution". 2013. ISSUU.com. July 15, 2013. http://issuu.com/prolifewi/docs/13-0130_1?e=5432640/3879854
Maddow, Rachel. The Rachel Maddow Show. MSNBC, New York. July 1, 2013. Transcript. NBCNews.com. July 15, 2013. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/52374304/ns/msnbc-rachel_maddow_show/
In the States
Wisconsin state Rep. André Jacque (R-De Pere), hopes to write personhood for the unborn in to the state constitution.
Mark Maley explains:
“The personhood amendment seeks to end abortion in Wisconsin, not to regulate or restrict it,” Matt Sande, Pro-Life Wisconsin's director of legislation, said in a statement. “It seeks to end all violence toward preborn children in Wisconsin – surgical, chemical, experimental, etc. – at all stages of development. If we are to be truly just as a people, our civil law must recognize and protect all human beings as ‘persons.’"
Jacque's proposal would add language to the Constitution that says: "As applied to the right to life, the terms 'people' and 'person' shall apply to every human being at any stage of development."It also would remove the word "born" from the phrase "all people are born free and independent" in the Constitution.
Jacque's proposal would add language to the Constitution that says: "As applied to the right to life, the terms 'people' and 'person' shall apply to every human being at any stage of development."It also would remove the word "born" from the phrase "all people are born free and independent" in the Constitution.
Interestingly—or perhaps not—Jacque's proposed amendment runs into the central question of what happens to a woman's rights when she becomes pregnant. The language of the amendment diregards the issue entirely, leaving unresolved the question of women as people.
Wisconsin joins several other states in pursuit of personhood constitutional amendments. North Dakota has passed such a law, and a movement is under way in Iowa. Still, though, state Sen. Glenn Grothman (R-West Bend) suggests, "The bill didn't go anywhere last year and I wouldn't expect it to go anywhere this year."
As a matter of procedure, amending Wisconsin's constitution can be tough; the amendment must pass both houses of the legislature in two consecutive sessions, and only then can it be put in front of voters. Meanwhile, Wisconsin Right to Life, said to be the state's largest anti-abortion operation, has declared its opposition, suggesting the amendment could work in favor of the pro-choice argument.
Wisconsin is one of the few states to have a law on the books that bans abortions. Although that law has been rendered unenforceable by court rulings, Jacque and other abortion opponents hope to see it automatically revived if the U.S. Supreme Court reverses Roe v. Wade, the Journal Sentinel reported.
However, Wisconsin Right to Life says a personhood amendment would make the law that prohibits abortion invalid.
The group also says enacting the law could cost up to $4 million and it would be likely challenged in court.
"Supporting a costly effort like a personhood amendment, which is risky and unnecessary, has the very real potential of causing more harm than good," the group says on its website.
However, Pro-Life Wisconsin and Jacque say the amendment would not invalidate the existing law, and cite an analysis by the Wisconsin Legislative Council, a nonpartisan state agency, which says the the current law "appears to complement rather than conflict with the proposed constitutional amendment."
However, Wisconsin Right to Life says a personhood amendment would make the law that prohibits abortion invalid.
The group also says enacting the law could cost up to $4 million and it would be likely challenged in court.
"Supporting a costly effort like a personhood amendment, which is risky and unnecessary, has the very real potential of causing more harm than good," the group says on its website.
However, Pro-Life Wisconsin and Jacque say the amendment would not invalidate the existing law, and cite an analysis by the Wisconsin Legislative Council, a nonpartisan state agency, which says the the current law "appears to complement rather than conflict with the proposed constitutional amendment."
The amendment text:
SECTION 1. Section 1 of article 1 of the constitution is amended to read:
[Article I] Section 1. All people areborn equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights; among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; to secure these rights, governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. As applied to the right to life, the terms "people" and "person" shall aply to every human being at any stage of development.
Be it further resolved, That this proposed amndment be referred to the legislature to be chosen at the next general election, and that it be published for three months previous to the time of holding such election.
[Article I] Section 1. All people are
Be it further resolved, That this proposed amndment be referred to the legislature to be chosen at the next general election, and that it be published for three months previous to the time of holding such election.
So, yes, here comes the usual rhetoric. IUD, hormonal birth control, IVF, and embryonic research will all be on the block. And as Rachel Maddow noted of the recent Ohio anti-abortion ambush:
Ohio Republicans and John Kasich also in the budget decided to redefine the word "pregnancy" in that state. Now by decree, from Republican Governor John Kasich and the Republicans in the Ohio state legislature, your pregnancy begins even before implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterine lining.
Since several forms of popular birth control work by stopping implantation in the uterine lining, the Ohio state budget now essentially says, hey, you want an IUD or want to be on birth control pills? That means you want an abortion. And now, of course, there's a mandatory ultrasound before you can do that, followed by the speech from your doctor that your doctor doesn't have a choice about.
I mean, under this bill, under the letter of this new law, Ohio women might conceivably need to get a mandatory ultrasound by order of the state just so you can keep your birth control pills. The birth control, the IUD, the birth control pill you've been on forever, now mandatory ultrasound? That's how the law is written.
Nobody knows for sure if they really freaking mean that or if they have considered that implication of the change in the definition of the word "pregnancy" that they put in the state budget. Nobody knows if that's what they really meant because they never debated it. Never came up. There was no debate. So, nobody got to ask questions. Nobody ever had to explain themselves.
Since several forms of popular birth control work by stopping implantation in the uterine lining, the Ohio state budget now essentially says, hey, you want an IUD or want to be on birth control pills? That means you want an abortion. And now, of course, there's a mandatory ultrasound before you can do that, followed by the speech from your doctor that your doctor doesn't have a choice about.
I mean, under this bill, under the letter of this new law, Ohio women might conceivably need to get a mandatory ultrasound by order of the state just so you can keep your birth control pills. The birth control, the IUD, the birth control pill you've been on forever, now mandatory ultrasound? That's how the law is written.
Nobody knows for sure if they really freaking mean that or if they have considered that implication of the change in the definition of the word "pregnancy" that they put in the state budget. Nobody knows if that's what they really meant because they never debated it. Never came up. There was no debate. So, nobody got to ask questions. Nobody ever had to explain themselves.
The same questions loom over Wisconsin.
It is always funny to me when people purporting to play a moderate role in this issue try to convince us that these sorts of concerns are somehow extreme. For all the opportunities conservatives have had over the years to clarify that they don't really mean banning hormonal birth control, intra-uterine devices, or IVF and other embryonic research, they simply refuse to.
And in this Wisconsin push, we see the same problem of enforcement; perhaps one thinks it is extreme to worry about the implications of miscarriages and irregular menstrual cycles, but this is how the law is written. And they've been doing it this way for years; they've had plenty of opportunities to fix this rhetorical shortcoming. That they have not undertaken that repair is very, very suggestive, if not outright indicative. The only way out is to admit that these laws never were about fetuses. The only way out is to accept that these laws always were about putting women back in their imagined proper place.
Trust him: André may not be a woman, but he knows what's best for women. Even better than women.
What does that mean? How does that work? Well, note the Jacque Amendment: "As applied to the right to life". This does not pertain to liberty or pursuit of happiness. Only life.
To the one, they're not really recognizing the unborn as "people", merely changing a definition in order to suit politics while refusing medical science. This is desperately cynical and political; it hasn't a damn thing to do with the fetuses, as we see by the fact that over a hundred thousand former fetuses in this country are left without proper homes or families, and these political activists and officeholders don't really want to "think about the children".
To the other, we'll see whether and who they start prosecuting for negligent homicide in cases of miscarriage. Certainly, some shouldn't be prosecuted, but others are certainly exposed. And as we've seen how conservative jurisdictions treat fetal homicide laws—ostensibly passed to protect pregnant women against domestic abuse and other violence but primarily and nearly exclusively deployed against women with mental health, addiction, or other issues of dysfunction—there is no reason to expect that this arbitrary standard of preborn "personhood" will follow a peculiarly independent path.
Furthermore, anti-abortion activists are making the same mistake Gov. Phil Bryant and fellow Republicans made in Mississippi when they proudly touted that their trap-law package was intended to end abortion in the state.
See, normally the activists and politicians couch their language somewhat, crafting sound bites about protecting women's health. You know, like, this isn't really about stopping abortion but making sure women who need such services get proper treatment and care. But Bryant and his cohort gleefully announced publicly that their law, which, like the Ohio package, included the admitting privileges paradox°, was intended to end the practice of abortion in Mississippi. And, yes, the federal judge who blocked the law included that in his decision. Certes, the idea that Pro-Life Wisconsin's legislative director should say, "The personhood amendment seeks to end abortion in Wisconsin, not to regulate or restrict it", is hardly the same as if he was one of the elected officials making it happen, but he certainly isn't helping the legal standing of the law after it is passed, signed, and hauled into court.
We see how low these people are willing to go. We've seen Republicans at the state level sack everything the national party wants people to believe: intrusive government, deceptive legislation, deliberate rushes to avoid scrutiny, and now they are celebrating publicly their commitment to passing unconstitutional laws without even a whiff of noble pretense.
And this is the problem: For all they wail that "children" aren't being heard in the abortion debate, one cannot help but notice the invisibility of women in the anti-abortion outlook.
Rep. Jacque and Mr. Sande can certainly tell women that nobody is thinking of the organisms growing inside them. You know, hush now, the men are speaking. But it's quite easy to say something like that about a circumstance one will never encounter in their own life.
And they're doing this all for what? To smack it to women like they deserve? Don't tell me this is about dignity; we see how good those folks aren't with the children once they're alive. And don't even try to tell me this is for women, since they're nothing more than boarding houses for newly-classified "people".
Oh, wait. They're not even that; after all, they're not paying for the room and board.
____________________
Notes:
° admitting privileges paradox — It's a popular trap for TRAP laws. Under the guise of ensuring proper care for women, the law demands that abortion providers have admitting privileges to a nearby hospital. The problem there is that abortion providers cannot usually get admitting privileges because abortion is too safe a procedure. That is, the doctors performing abortions do not refer enough patients to the hospital to warrant admitting privileges. In the Ohio budget package, Republicans even managed to work in a requirement that abortion providers arrange certain transfer agreements with local hospitals, and another that prohibited the hospitals from entering such agreements. The whole thing is a con. Why they keep doing this, though? It's hard to say. Perhaps they think that if they hit the federal courts enough with the same stupid laws, they'll happen onto a judge who will give them what they want on the basis of so many laws having been passed. No, really. Nobody knows.
Works Cited:
Maley, Mark. "Pro-Life Groups Launch New Push for 'Personhood' Amendment". Greenfield Patch. July 14, 2013. Greenfield.Patch.com. July 15, 2013. http://greenfield.patch.com/groups/...oups-launch-new-push-for-personhood-amendment
Wisconsin State Assembly. "2013 Assembly Joint Resolution". 2013. ISSUU.com. July 15, 2013. http://issuu.com/prolifewi/docs/13-0130_1?e=5432640/3879854
Maddow, Rachel. The Rachel Maddow Show. MSNBC, New York. July 1, 2013. Transcript. NBCNews.com. July 15, 2013. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/52374304/ns/msnbc-rachel_maddow_show/
- Status