Whether it’s when we’re demanding our right to control our own bodies and fertility, including full abortion rights, or we’re asking those who proclaim themselves our allies to recognize how important it is they always recognize our rights, autonomy and agency without debate, it’s become clear that the problem we face is on a basic level, they don’t recognize that we are the sole owners of our bodies, our time, our energy and our feelings.
Now, those who claim they’re our allies and offer the most insipid & milquetoast kind of pro-choice attitudes insist they’re not like those bad people who’d force us to give birth against our will. They respect us and our choices. But must we always be so adversarial about it? So dogmatic? What’s so horrible about allowing debate or other viewpoints about abortion? It’s not as clear cut a secular advocacy issue as equal marriage rights, after all.
Because every time they tell us we have to support and endorse movements that include and welcome those that devalue us, they are telling us we have to defend our most basic rights of self over and over again. It means that our supposed allies don’t respect our rights to own our time.
They are displaying the same toxic underlying male privilege assumptions they claim to denounce. They are saying with their actions that they do feel they or others are entitled to our time. And that our justifiably angry response to that imposition is wrong.
Let me be clear if you do not consistently support or respect the basic bodily rights and autonomy of people who can become pregnant, I don’t care if you are nominally pro-choice. You may think standard medical care like abortion care should be legal, but you haven’t shown you any respect for my agency. You have shown what you truly think is important, and it is you and your comfort above me and my actual life.
There are things I very much like about living in Salt Lake City. The political leanings and stifling religious atmosphere (although less than outside our little island of liberalism) are not among those things. However, I generally expect that in Salt Lake City itself, I’m less likely to encounter super-conservative and religious weirdness. So I was surprised and disappointed when I read an article about statements made by the president of the University of Utah, Michael Young claiming that religious freedoms are eroding and threatened in the United States. It alternates between dead wrong and batshit craziness.
University of Utah President Michael K. Young has a strong message for members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
He says freedom of religion is eroding in America and he urges Mormons to join the American Civil Liberties Union.
While generally speaking, I think that the ACLU does a great job at protecting important freedoms for people who otherwise can’t afford it, I really disagree that there is any meaningful threat to religious freedom in the United States. Unless of course, you’re talking about the freedom to be non-religious and still be accepted, because I see lots and lots of examples of discrimination against atheists and in many cases n0n-Christians. But he’s not arguing that people aren’t free to not believe in gods, but that it’s getting harder to make others hear about exactly which versions you believe in and push a personal agenda based on those beliefs.
While speaking at the annual conference of the LDS International Society on Monday at Brigham Young University, Young said religious freedom is about free will and agency.
No real argument here. I may not agree with your religious belief, but I sure as hell will fight for your right to believe in whatever you want to and belong to the religious or group of your choice, including none. Those protections are so old and codified in so many places, from the constitution itself, in individual laws and in all the bodies of settled law that they are untouchable. But Young apparently doesn’t agree on about that.
Fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, FUCK, FUCK, FUCK, fucking dipshit assholes who care nothing about women’s dignity and freedom. I have to get that out of my system first thing.
I wrote a nice, sensible, sourced post about some distressing trends in a rational and calm way. I’m done with the calm measured response because there is no reason to give any benefit of the doubt to states that are so fucking preoccupied with controlling women’s reproduction that they give an implicit okay to murder.
I talked about South Dakota previously, but now Nebraska and Iowa have decided to push similar measures that go a step further. (No really) These proposals do not limit the excuse to blood relatives (and similarly attached persons) of the fetus, but extend this to any third party. Which would theoretically have excused Mr. Roeder’s heinous crime in Wichita.
Claims that these laws are merely to protect the pregnant women are bullshit distraction tactics. Laws already exist to allow self defense to prevent bodily harm to yourself (which falls under the category of attacking women whether or not the intension is to terminate their pregnancies). In essence, if this were truly how the bills were written, it would merely make illegal things illegal again.
This is a favorite tactic when proposing laws intended to do much more than their stated scope (see the recent U.S. House’s actions aimed at “preventing tax dollars from funding abortion” which was handily taken care of long before my birth through the Hyde Amendment in 1976.) The whole point of these recent actions in state legislatures is to put such fear and uncertainty into physicians that they stop offering necessary and (theoretically) legal services to women altogether.
I hope these measures fail to become law, but that’s not the point. That individuals who are state officials and representatives dare to imply justifiable murder toward their brave, law abiding medical personnel, we have a fucking problem.
When simplified down, it seems to come to:
- Slowly chip away at the legal protections from the landmark Roe v. Wade decision establishing constitutional protections for a medical service.
- Decrease reproductive services access for women all across the country while simultaneously removing comprehensive sex education from public schools, and passing “conscience clause” legislation that renders women unable to get easy access to contraception.
- Allow abortion clinics to be targeted by extremist protesters that eventually use tactics such as inciting to murder (no surprise when those murders then take place). Continue passing legislation that are “message” bills, aimed in word at eliminating the use of public funds for abortion services, but effectively discouraging the private sector from covering abortion services.
- Once access is almost negligible, introduce legislation that will put the last nail in the coffin of providers willing to provide a legal medical service by excusing murder under the law if done to protect a fetus.
- Profit! Read More…