Last night on the show, Rachel talked about the revitalized Personhood movement. Those are the folks who are opposed to abortion, and whose otherwise fringe politics have led to legislative efforts in eight states that could outlaw birth control.
Among Personhood USA's initiatives is "Conceived in Rape," which has recently been on tour in Mississippi. At one local stop, in Laurel, State Sen. Chris McDaniel (R-Ellisville) praised the hosting Center for Pregnancy Choices. “They are amazing,” he told the Laurel Leader-Call. “They are on the front lines in the fight for life. They’re out there letting people know there are other options aside from just aborting the child.” Of course, if the Personhood movement wins, there will be only one choice -- the one they want you to have.
Today on Facebook, the main speaker for Conceived in Rape responds to our report last night. After the jump, by popular request, the links Will posted on Personhood bills.
Abortion bill in Alabama Legislature could have sweeping effects on laws
Alabama's S.B. 301 (pdf) (just say ok to that pop-up)
Other personhood legislation:
- Montana's House Bill 409 (pdf)
- North Dakota's House Bill 1450 (pdf)
- Oklahoma's House Bill 1571
- Virginia's House Bill 1440
- Iowa House File 153
- Georgia's Senate Resolution 153
- Texas House Bill 1109
- Mississippi Initiative Measure No. 26
Pro-choice forces seek to prevent referendum
"Personhood" amendment fails by 3-1 margin
Personhood Petition Now Active in All 50 States
Mississippi Personhood Amendment 26 Kicks Off 'Conceived in Rape' Tour Today
Leave a Comment:
Me & my wife have 2 girls over 13 yrs. apart (now 26 & 13) & have unfortunatly been thru 4, maybe 5 miscarraiges in that span. Being a life long liberal, I have always screamed that the anti-abortion politicians wouldn't ever put there money where their mouth is. Are they willing to give me & possibly millions of others TAX deductions for my lost PERSONS. At 2 to 3 g's per, that would be where the greedy GOPers would draw the line -god willing !!
I've had the same thought. If life begins as conception, howzaout a tax deduction and child credit for our in utero citizens. Count for census? Calculate age from conception for driver's license, drinking (uh oh) or retirement (woo hoo!)?
And can you imagine the birthers demanding someone's long form conception certificate?
As I am sorry for you mis-fortunes, I get your point. It's as if All the 'good causes' are taken. So to avoid not being seen behind the huddled masses of your garden variety pro-lifers rally, the lines are shorter and this will assure me the chance to wave to the camera and my Mom when the media trucks get here.....Wait just a dog-gone-minute....If we follow this logic, we could soon see someone introduce a bill that makes it illegal for women to have her 'Period'.
i'm sure some women would love that - if it meant that the bill would take it all away.
yeah, as if...
lol Carrie....eyah....I can see the women-folk jumpin on THAT bandwagon. ;) But then.....the repugs would never go for that bill...cuz then women wouldn't be poppin out babies, would they? ;)
Thank you Maddow Crew! You are the BEST!!!
Language that talks about the moment of "fertilization" or "conception" would not seem to ban the pill, which as I understand it prevents fertilization, nor would it seem to ban barrier methods. But it would potentially ban other birth control methods. I'd be curious if anyone (particularly lawyers or doctors) could explain if I'm wrong about that. I'd hate to undermine my anti-personhood law argument by overstating it.
However, language that defines personhood as "any stage of human life" is more troubling to me, since that leaves open the possibility that every sperm or egg is, er, sacred.
Regardless of the language, the personhood language is, in my opinion, a slap in the face to women. It says we as persons are subservient to the any human zygote, fetus, etc. that is held within our bodies. And most importantly, it says that we should have no control over what we do with our bodies.
I gotta say, I don't understand how people who are so upset about infringement of their right to "bear arms" can be so complacent about half the population NOT having the right to control over our own bodies.
sadly they are taught that a gun is move valuable then women.
If you read the previous story on this blog, about the closing of the school in Detroit, the premise of Republicans seeing us fully developed or out-of-womb people subservient to zygotes doesn't seem that far off.
Heck, I'll double that premise and just say that darn near every person who can't pay the Republicans directly is subservient to zygotes.
The justification of that premise? Ryan Plan. Attempts to remove Planned Parenthood. The desire to privatize social security and reduce regulations on everything, from food to paint.
...How can Christians still in lock step follow the republicans when they are clearly on a legislative level stepping on the fingers of the poor who are already here, now for two extra dimes to the rich? Didn't Jesus himself teach against this? But where in scripture do you see Jesus quoted "Bring all the zygotes to full term."?
Hi Susan,
Regarding this comment:
The primary intended mode of action of oral contraceptives is the prevention of ovulation. If that works 100% effectively, then yes, no egg, no fertilization/conception. However, the combination of hormones in the pill accomplishes two additional means of preventing pregnancy. They make it more difficult for sperm to penetrate the cervix, which would also prevent conception. But they also make the uterine lining unsuitable for implantation. Given that the pill is not 100% effective (efficacy rates from 99.9 to 97% have been cited), there is always a slight possibility of fertilization occurring, with the "birth control" happening from the prevention of implantation. Since we now have to discuss things like "personhood" in a legal sense, I don't think any woman on the pill can say, if asked to do so in a court of law, that personhood was prevented beyond a shadow of a doubt. Considering this, then yes, legalization of the pill would be at risk if this movement gets its way. If the Catholic Church is in any way involved in the personhood movement (and I do believe I saw them on one of the links), then we know right now that they are anti-pill. This will just revitalize their stance on natural family planning.
One thing to consider as well--and forgive me, I have not read all the posts here--is that, if personhood begins at conception, then does a woman commit involuntary manslaughter when she has a miscarriage? Now, I know that sounds ghastly and crazy, but that is where we are heading. It is to sane people's benefit to be able to predict crazy. I think we have enough data out there to develop some suitable variables to construct a computer model that accurately predicts crazy, with 100% certitude (thanks, AW). We can do projections 5, maybe 10 years out and head all this off at the pass. Any computer geeks want to take on this task?
There is tons of information on the mode of action for the pill. Here are just a couple of examples: (been having trouble with links lately, so I took out the http)
www.medscape.com/viewarticle/421497_3
www.med.umich.edu/obgyn/resdir/contraception/OralContLalley.htm
There's some disagreement about that theory, even amongst pro-life physicians. Google "hostile endometrium" for some discussion on it.
I would imagine it would depend on how you take the pill. Since I had my ovaries removed, I've been prescribed birth control pills as a means of hormone replacement therapy. This will keep my uterus functional and I can still conceive via in vitro fertilization. If the pill prevented implantation, then this would not be possible.
I'm not interested in having kids, but this is what my doctor told me.
I've thought about that as well. Specifically what about women who have a higher risk of miscarriage? Will they not be allowed to try to get pregnant? I'm sure the argument then is that abortion is okay when God does it. It's human intervention anti-abortionists have an issue with. It doesn't make sense to me since women obviously have a lot of control over their own pregnancy. I mean, is the government going to start regulating women's diets and activities as long as they're of child bearing age in order to ensure fertility?
Hey, thanks for the heads up. Do you know of any recent scientific literature on this? I keep coming across similar articles on a Google search. It'd be interesting to see how much of the pill manufacturers' claims are marketing and how much is based on recent studies. The compilation and dosage of hormones in the pill have changed over time. This particular group does not seemed convinced that there are endometrial changes without substantial, recent evidence in the scientific literature.
It also seems that the debate is rooted in defining the pill as a "contraceptive" or "abortifacient" based on how strong the evidence is for this third mode of action. The debate is also centered around when life begins. This makes a difference in whether or not pregnancy is being prevented, or abortion caused, by the pill. While the authors do not seem to deny that changes in the uterine wall occur as a result of OCs, they would like to see more evidence in the scientific literature than what has been accepted through historical use of the pill. But that is a new twist on the debate that I had not seen--not when does "life" begin, but when does "pregnancy" begin.
@Grrrl--what's that old song? "It's nature's way of telling you something's wrong." Food for thought--to predict crazy, one must consider crazy notions. Seriously consider.
I think with as much disdain that the Right has for the First Lady's "Let's Move" campaign, we are safe from this. For a while.
It would also depend on the chemical make up of the pill--progestin only? Dosage of components? That would make a difference.
Anonymous Fan:
"...How can Christians still in lock step follow the republicans when they are clearly on a legislative level stepping on the fingers of the poor who are already here, now for two extra dimes to the rich? Didn't Jesus himself teach against this? But where in scripture do you see Jesus quoted "Bring all the zygotes to full term.""
christians are accustomed to doing as they're told, and repugnants learned a long time ago to preach politics from the pulpit, so a huge voting block has been told by their 'conduit to god' to vote against their own best interests. And then, rather than *think* about it, they just DO it! Stupid sheep!
Recently, women started outnumbering men in the workplace and in the ranks of those graduating from universities. I can't help but feel this story (and the one below re: Catherine Fergueson Academy, as well as the whole radical anti-abortion movement) are somehow a backlash against the progress women have made over the years. As a woman, I feel truly threatened by all this. What right does anyone have to tell me that I am supposed to be a baby factory!?!?
In the historical context it was only in 1965 that women gained control of their family planning. All birth control became legal across the entire USA. It wasn't just the Pill but other methods too could be legally purchased and used.
It took another 10 to 15 years before business realized that girls we serious about working and careers. That we wouldn't quit as soon as we got preggers. And even if we got preggers we would come back after maternity leave.
if women kept on getting pregnant, leave would end up being permanent for quite a few.
i'm sure other amendments would spring up, that would help in making it difficult for women to return.
A few of the current responses to that Facebook diatribe on "Conceived in Rape" are really creepy. It's interesting how they feel the need to speak for everyone who has become pregnant as a result of rape. They are SO sure of their own righteousness they don't even consider how people who are absolutely not willing nor able to go through with such a pregnancy might feel. It's their way, or else...
There is entirely too much of that kind of thinking going on these days, and it's very disturbing. These anti-choice people just don't care that there are already too many people to feed in this world, that there are already countless children in our own country who go without food or care or love. That there are already too many children with physical or mental impairments who wait for someone to adopt them... They don't care about these kids that are already here, they just want to make more babies.
It reminds me of all the delusional people who adore puppies and kittens, but just can't be bothered with adult dogs and cats -- the ones that keep adopting adorable baby animals, then unloading them as soon as they are adults that need extra care and attention and training. Same mentality.
And yet, these extremists are being taken seriously by so many politicians? Scary stuff...
Yeah, just another example of "small government" righties wanting the government to be big enough to regulate what you do in the bedroom. These are the same people who were so outraged at China's one child program. I guess it's ok if you wrap it in the American flag.....those 50 stars and 13 stripes are big enough to hide a multitude of sins, a mountain of hypocrisy, and a chasm of ignorance.
Those of us NOT on Facebook can't read the diatribe.
BeckyB1 - suffice it to say that this woman feels her mother would have "murdered" her but the state's anti-choice laws saved her life. It's obvious that she hates or at least resents her mother for almost "killing" her and that she's grateful to her adopted parents. The woman has obvious (and understandable) issues with her birth mother and is therefore unable to see her point of view and to have compassion for what it's like to be forced to bear a child she didn't want or that would prolong the agony of the rape.
Thanks for the recap.
It's too bad we don't have the technology to do proper sex changes. Meaning, reconstructing a person's biology from the chromosomal level on up. It would be a very nice idea if, before any male would be allowed to form any opinion about pregnancy and related matters, said male would be required to take on a fully-functional female anatomy long enough to experience exactly what it is all really about. Then, turkey, maybe you'll have something to say worth listening to.
And, consistent with all that, I am now going to shut up on this subject.
MM...#5.5 ...one of the sweetest posts I've read on the blog in a long time...
You go girl! Our right to privacy to make our own reproductive decisions is under attack and low info voters need to understand that they may wake up one day and no longer have birth control options.
These people are sneaky. They got Bush to stop the distribution of birth control in the foreign aid packages. Obama restored it early on.
The Abstinence Only movement also promotes ignorance of Birth Control amongst teens. When teen idols like the Jonas Brothers and Bieber only promote "purity" rings I wonder if any stars promote a more realistic approach that includes knowledge of the options to use when "love" strikes? I don't have teens but worry that kids aren't getting the full story on the facts of Life. It should include the knowledge that responsible sex includes using Birth Control.
I think for the sake of the men and women who believe that the "conceived in rape" tour is a wonderful thing--Rachel might have to dumb it down a bit and explain that humans are wonderful, but CHOICE is a right worthy to fight for.
I read the woman's reply to the Maddow segment and I feel compassion for her misunderstanding. I do think Rachel was inflammatory, but with good reason, as calling your cause "Conceived in Rape" is inflammatory also.
Women are under attack in terms of personal power and choice. My mother was married to an abusive alcoholic and had 5 children with him (not her preference) before the Birth Control pill even became available. She then had to suffer the indignity of BEGGING her Catholic priest for permission to use the pill so she could get her life back and focus on the children she had. I was loved and supported by an amazing powerful woman. She used her considerable intelligence to become the first woman business manager at Gantos in the 70's, with only her high school diploma. Still, she never knew all of her strength because she gave it to the patriarchy that she was conditioned to accept. I am very proud to be her daughter but I don't share her fears and concepts of leadership.
I now am raising 3 daughters of my own and I hope they will know even more than I do about what amazing, courageous, strong, intelligent women they are and will be.
My girls watch TRMS. Most of the time because they like it! :-) Sometimes because I want them to (for their own good! lol).
Keep up the amazing work, folks. Please! For all of us.
Kells
I had not thought of that.
Talk about going back into the dark ages. What about "population explosion" do these folks not understand. The economy is a mess...baby boomers are retiring and going to face a real crisis and the post-boomers are going to be even worse. This is a very deep hole we are digging and if these stupid fringe freaks outlaw birth control...where do they think these people are going to get fed, get educated, or get jobs?
Maggie, that is one of the conundrums of our age. Members and constituents of the GOP claim to have cornered the market on Jesus, but the party doesn't seem to have an ounce of compassion in it.
They don't really equate "saving a fetus" with "supporting a life". That's why you'll never see mandatory DNA testing for the presumed father, with accompanying legislation for 18 years of mandatory financial support, though they will make the mother pee in a cup if she can't get a job after childbirth and needs help supporting the child.
It's nauseating, truly.
India and China had to battle the population through birth control to stabilize their economies in spite of problems with implementation.
Now republicans are possibly seeing successful India and China with large populations; want to see large population in USA so as to get cheap labor and compete with populous countries effectively.
The saddest part is that if these people are successful they would ban the Morning After pill. If a rape victim gets this treatment it prevents any abortion at a later date.
Back to the little heard meme that the best way to reduce the number of abortions is cheap and easy access to birth control and the education of how to use it. Obama had this in one of the State of the Union speeches and it barely got a clap. Sad.
exactly. option - that is the key word. the golden key word.
It's Pro Choice vs. No Choice. How's that for a 2012 bumper-sticker?
You could even argue it on religious grounds. Do we want to give our government the right to take away our god-given free will? I'd love to watch Libertarians squirm over that one...
What the hell is wrong with these people? Our planet is already suffering from over crowding, the shortage of food, water, livable space, jobs ect ect. Yet they want every sexual encounter to result in pregnancy? I think their biggest problem is they have distast for the act itself and anyone engaging in such act (female) should show to the world thier shameful conduct. Unbelievable ignorance!
I agree. Heretofore brand anti-abortion legislation as forced-overpopulation legislation.
Bombing more brown people is NOT an effective solution to overpopulation. Besides, in this political cycle we apparently care that bombs cost money too! Don't you love cognitive dissonance?
Oh Tamlea haven't you heard? There's no such thing as population overcrowding. It's impossible for the earth to ever have too many people. This, too, is a liberal hippie commie conspiracy. I'm serious that they do not believe that there isn't enough food, enough water, or that there can ever be too many people.
Forced birth is
repugnantRepublican.I do not understand this. Why are these people wanting to push women backwards in terms of personal freedom and control over our own bodies? Why are there even women standing on the street with these signs? How can they think that doing this is going to make it better for them? Don't they realize that this is a slippery slope of epic proportions?
The whole mess is beyond disturbing, and while my state is not yet on that list, you can bet your ass I'm gonna be watching my legislators very closely from now on.
There are many explanations for this phenomenon, but I am still unable to understand why these "personhood" fringies are popping up in such numbers all over.
Is it something in the air, water, food, d'ya think. Whatever it is, how is it possible to convince these looney tunes the dangerous nature of their thinking.
Their minds seem to be stuck in Reverse for all time. They are a very real threat to civilization.
the only way i can think, cyncerity, that women would want this, is if they feel comfortable knowing their limited role in society...that they feel comfortable placed a certain way, in a small box.
some people like knowing exactly where they stand. they feel safer that way.
going through what we've been through, it makes sense. people are doing anything for security.
Borders on Stockholm syndrome, doesn't it?
boarders?
nope, i think it very much is stockholm syndrome.
Internalized oppression.
ahhh - yup! the one thing people can control, when feeling oppressed, is oppressing their own self - it gives the illusion that they are in total control.
oppressors bank on it.
Celie in The Color Purple...
"Beat her."
I think you gals have it exactly right. For whatever reason, these women are content with what they are told their lot in life is to be. They are happy in the box into which they are stuffed.
But I can't help but think some of them must be a little bit jealous of the women who break out of that box, and their way of combating that feeling is to try and put all women back into the same box that they feel they have to exist in. What bugs me the most is....why do they want to make the rest of us as miserable as they are? Why not break themselves free of their oppression instead? I have never understood that part of the female psyche. Oh, I understand the psychological part of it, but I still never understood why they couldn't see their own strength. Probably because I have never been that way...but still. Why do they want us down in the ditch with them rather than up in the sunshine with the rest of us? I'm waxing philisophical, I know....I'll stop now.....
lobsters. female lobsters.
Misery likes company.
For what it's worth, I also think these women are subordinating their own interests out of a strong desire for order: every thing and every one in their place.
This seems to have gone missing now, but there used to be a very long list of quotes from Christine O'Donnell at Think Progress. I think they took the page down. But one was about how she enjoyed visiting Saudi Arabia (I think) because nothing sexually suggestive (again, I think) allowed in public. And yet, Saudi Arabia is a very repressive country, particularly where women are concerned. And yet, she found that appealing; because, I suppose, that repression addressed her desire for order.
we all love disney for it's innocence ...and that it keeps our kids ..kid like.
MonK: SCREW ORDER!!!! :) I LIVE FOR CHAOS!!!! ;) heehee
And for people to think that they can impose order? They are living a pipe dream. The universe IS chaos. There is no such thing as order. Even Mother Nature's order is chaotic. Life, the Universe, and Everything. Complete chaos. ;) Idiots.
Of course it's a pipe dream. And they do fear chaos, which is why their rhetoric is always so apocalyptic, and their reactions to change and things that don't fit into their 'proper' slots are always so extreme, and why they always gravitate toward 'strong leaders' (dictators and tyrants).
It'd all be so pitiable if they didn't try so hard to drag everyone else down into their bottomless pit of fear and repression.
It's too bad I didn't see this before posting the above comment, but Right Wing Watch links to a thing by someone named Gary Cass who says at one point "We refuse to affirm their lie and the social chaos Obama and his allies want to impose." Just in case anyone might think I or anyone else is exaggerating the right's fear of chaos.
So, rape apologists have an actual movement? Vile, inhuman monsters.
My Catholic mom was beaten and raped by my dad thru 6 kids and as many miscarriages. She loved to tell a couple of my bros how they were products of rape. They're now barely functioning alcoholics living in the golden past that never existed. Luckily for me, dad liked kicking the crap out of the boys rather than the girls. That's the loverly family values these damaged creatures want to pass on to the next generation, cos, hey, if they lived through the horror, their rape-babies can, too.
Way to damage yet another generation, you filth. Hope they diaf.
These types of "personhood" bills are being floated at the in the House and Senate as well. Opencongress.org is a good way to track them.
Terry O'Neill hit it right on when she said "This is part of the war against women". Threatened males and conservatives of both sexes are working very hard to return us to the 1950's and put women "back in their place". No better way to do this than to deny women control of their own bodies. Thanks for covering this Rachel! It's hard for those who have not lived through the era of forced pregnancy to understand how it damages all of us to deny women their rights.
I've said it a million times. The Republicans love people in the womb. Once born though, they want us at the mercy of God's will and the market. Education? Health care? Food stamps? Jobs? You're on your own kid.
When I learn that these D-Bags have volunteered to adopt EVERY unwanted zygote and raise it to maturity...Then...Maybe I can look at this as something besides "Pack" behavior. Like gang behavior...Same structure...Chain of command.
XTIAN OVERLORDS.
Or would that be UNDERLORDS?
Anyway...Hockalugie...Mac spits at your willful stupidity!
Let's look at an actual insert for birth control pills and see what the drug information says:
"COCs lower the risk of becoming pregnant primarily by suppressing ovulation. Other possible mechanisms may include cervical mucus changes that inhibit sperm penetration and the endometrial changes that reduce the likelihood of implantation." (http://berlex.bayerhealthcare.com/html/products/pi/fhc/YAZ_PI.pdf)
Those "endometrial changes" mean that there is some non-zero possibility that the Pill is acting as an abortifacient after an egg is fertilized, and because of that, it WILL be outlawed. Don't believe me? Check these out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z96eKLwnJ2s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jiCU46_lWeE
http://www.prolife.com/BIRTHCNT.html
http://www.pfli.org/faq_oc.html
http://www.uffl.org/vol10/colliton10.pdf
http://www.abort73.com/abortion_facts/which_birth_control_methods_cause_abortion/
THEY WILL USE THIS TO OUTLAW ALL HORMONAL CONTRACEPTION, not just The Pill but also injections, Nuvaring, etc.
Moreover, if you are overweight or hypertensive, or at risk for certain breast cancers, you can't take the Pill.
IUDs would be completely outlawed, because part of how they work is by preventing implantation. If your egg is fertilized, and this law is passed, then using a IUD is baby killing.
Diaphragms would be okay, but as we know from a lot of studies, people do not always use them reliable, or insert them correctly. The diaphragm has a failure rate of approximately 5% for correct and consistent use. Typical use, which is the average way diaphragms are used, has a failure rate of approximately 18 - 20%. This means that 18 to 20 people out of every 100 will become pregnant during the first year of use.
Condoms would be okay, but many men flat refuse to wear them, and they can break: condoms have a failure rate of 14-15%. This means that 14-15 people out of every 100 will become pregnant during the first year of use.
Also note that "personhood" laws completely outlaw abortion, no matter what Roe v. Wade says. If it's a "person" from the moment sperm hits egg, then you are totally screwed if you need an abortion for any reason.
If you are raped, too bad, you WILL BE FORCED TO CARRY THE CHILD OF YOUR RAPIST to term. If you're one of the lucky 3-out-of-4 women who hasn't been raped, let me assure you, I feel this would be akin to that scene in the Sigourney Weaver film Alien when the alien eats its way out of the guy's chest.
If you are pregnant, and it's discovered that you have severe heart issues such that the pregnancy will likely kill or cripple you, too bad. Sonogram reveals that the baby has no head, and will die immediately upon birth -- too damn bad, carry it to term anyway. The mother develops gestational diabetes and is at high risk of death? -- too damn bad, if she had sex she's GUILTY she deserves to die.
So what if you are raped by your father? Most people think this is rare, but SURPRISE!!! http://healthland.time.com/2011/02/11/dna-tests-of-disabled-kids-uncovers-evidence-of-incest/ DNA testing is revealing that incest is a LOT MORE COMMON than people would like to think.
Thanks for posting this and clarifying - the mechanism by which contraceptives work is what I was talking about in my first post above.
FWIW, I don't think these "personhood" laws can technically outlaw abortion as long as Roe is in place. But I guarantee the lawmakers introducing these bills have decided to do so now because they think a challenge to such a law would lead to the overturning of Roe. So much appears to be riding on whether Justice Kennedy would vote to overturn..... It's maddening.
Perhaps progressive lawmakers should be introducing bills to ensure abortion is an intact right on a state-by-state basis.
I think it's a means by which they're trying to get around the abortion issue. It's very interesting to me how one can ban a certain type of contraceptive and not have that come into conflict w/ Roe vs. Wade. I'm kind've curious if you can answer that. Roe and Wade operate off the premise that we have the right to privacy and that, that right extends to medical practices. How then are we not violating that by denying certain medical practices? Or does that end up falling under regulation and commerce rules?
That's precisely the reason they're challenging it on the "personhood" basis.
Read more: 'Personhood' silver bullet to kill Roe v. Wade? http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=43769#ixzz1OocIyeqO
Perhaps progressive lawmakes should be introducing bills to mandate vasectomies on any male over the age of 15. It's an outpatient procedure, non-invasive, not harmful to development, reversible and would completely render moot the idea of unplanned pregnancies and the need for abortions.
The guy would just need a note from a woman stating that she actually wants to have sex with him and procreate and voila`, his doctor can reverse it. ;)
I like the idea of him needing permission from her.
Thankfully Rachel’s Blog changed its format similar to Lawrence’s making reading, tracking, and commenting easier. Last night’s reporting with Larry Flynt, Planned Parenthood attacks, etc. were excellent as usual, but rarely do I read bellicose Conservatives on Rachel’s public comment pages which disappoints me since their—often belligerent—comments show their hate enough to write and have proven very entertaining reading for sure.
Larry Flynt’s enlightening interview gave insight to our political history’s struggle we Americans have with the ongoing “Sexual Revolution” begun in the ‘70s. Similar to the recent Arizona Massacre, Larry suffered crippling gunshots (which everyone seems to pretend it was a lone crazy gunman phenomenon, but denies the hate motive), court challenges (great American flag fighting that benefited all), and constant denigration by society with very few Liberals coming to his aid. Along with other cultural changes from that ‘revolutionary’ era, we finally accepted long hair, tight blue jeans, etc., but sex was a topic so taboo that women are still frowned upon for enjoying sex; seek out multiple sex partners; marrying each other; abort fetuses; control their own birth organs; etc. ad nauseum. Combine this cultural Victorian style beliefs with sexy commercial interests —yes, sex does sell; we older men need the stimulus because no women look that good in real life—and you have a society that technically could be diagnosed as schizophrenic—it means we are mentally ill.
Women are certainly under attack by the Right as are the Unions, Middleclass, and essentially all Americans (makes you wonder if we are under attack by foreign forces), but more so recently since a Black President drew up suppressed hatred and united Conservatives with the ‘70s left-over ‘pigs.’ Well as with all attacks upon your persons, you women have but one recourse; fight! Women’s Rights Movement won battles, but considering you make less than men for the same job, but are better employed during these bad economic times (because you are paid less), the war is not won by a long shot; in fact you are losing battles in those Republican held States. So what are you going to do about it—and please do not say you will Twit your genitals. Good luck!
I myself feel threatened. When I read about and listen to all of the various state legislatures trying to take away women's rights, the Handmaid's Tale seems like it is on it's way to becoming non-fiction.
BTW - "conceived in rape" - that child has genes from the mother and the father so technically, a child of rape IS partly the rapists child. You can't give back 1/2 of your genes just because you don't like the parent who gave them to you.
not sure maybe you can explain to me are you condoning conceivable rape should be cared all the way threw?
just wondering thanks
i don't think omaharunner is saying that. i think omaharunner is saying that as a response to some who are complaining of being called "a rapist child".
ok thanks i was wondering, is all.
There's more to being a parent than contributing half of the DNA, Omaha, and a rapist cannot provide more than that.
Unfortunately, there are many "parents" of both genders whose ONLY contribution to the child is half of the DNA.
As far as I know, a rapist can claim parental rights and shared custody.
That seems so wrong on so many levels.
Grrl:
What?!?! WHAT?!?!!?! Is that a joke? What...they are entitled to visitation in prison? Guard supervised weekends? WTF? That has to be a joke. Of course, if it were me? There would be no shared anything. "Here ya go, full custody for ya, knock yourself out"
No actually a rapist can sue for legal rights that same-sex couples are denied in many states (such as FL). Unfortunately what GR is saying is beyond disgustingly true. However it's highly unlikely the court would grant any custody rights to a rapist that was unknown to the mother. Since the majority of rapes are conducted by someone the mother knew this creates a legal loophole in which even if the male is convicted of the rape, he can still claim parental rights. Isn't it lovely?
What was Rachel thinking by calling the rapist's child the rapist's child?
(sarcasm buttton off)
Wow....this is just....I can't even.....I don't know what....wow.
Great being a woman in the good ole' USA, eh? At least, it will be for another 6 months or so. Then we may want to move.
From the PA Petition:
This is their argument. While these were/are heinous crimes, they were perpetrated against persons already born, so I don't see the relevance.
IMO, this whole movement has absolutely nothing to do with how their hearts bleed for the "children" and everything to do with power. The power of men over women. It seems these men are afraid that women don't need them to "take care of the little woman" any more; so if the women are overburdened and downtrodden they will be desperate and become submissive. Yeah, that'll happen!
What will happen is that women will carry the burden of not only giving birth, but the child care afterward and in the case of rape and/or "deadbeat dads" the women will also have to bear the entire financial burden while not earning adequate/equal salary.
AND, as I see it, when the only birth control available to a woman is NO SEX, the incidence of rape (in and out of marriage) will sky rocket.
I was born in the 50s and I remember those days so just kill me now if that's where we're going cause I WILL NOT go back!!!!!
I'm beginning to see some advantage to "second amendment remedies!" Ha.
It's not about the Abortion, it's about the Sex.
Purityrannicals and they're obsessions with everything sexual.
If you want to understand the people who are opposed to abortion, contraception, etc., you have to look to the history of women's rights. Prior to women getting the right to vote, the common law looked at women and children as "chattel", that is to say property of the man. There was a lot of resistance to change when the amendment passed. Since that time courts have abolished the common law concept, but it took a long time for women to get full rights of citizenship. Despite the legal abolition of the "chattel" concept in law, there are a large number of people, old and young, that have that mindset today.
In 1965, Griswold v. Connecticut and its progeny, established the principle that marriage is a fundamental right under the US Constitution. This was the basis for voiding state laws regarding miscegnation. These decisions are creating major problems with gay marriage because any law that restricts marriage gets strict review by the SCOTUS and there are implications for the right to privacy. It will be very difficult for the SCOTUS to get around these decisions because they are unwilling to overrule those cases. If they were to overturn these decisions, it would create legal havoc. Before the 1930's the courts upheld the right for people to control their own bodies. This principle was chipped away by the laws about drugs, particularly, marijuana. Flash forward to Roe v. Wade and all of these legal principles come into play with the abortion decision. The SCOTUS found there was a constitutional right to privacy based on various laws and legal principles. That right included the right of women to control their bodies. Conservatives have attacked the decision because there is no right to privacy stated in the Constitution. Liberals are unhappy with the decision because it grants the state rights to regulate the procedure with increasing rights based on the trimester. The liberals believe the right to abortion should be a medical decision between a woman and her doctor, just like any other medical procedure.
The Catholic Church has opposed contraception and was angry with the Griswold decision. Other religions did not see Griswold as a major issue. It was the abortion decision that triggered all the religious opposition. They believe life and personhood begins at conception. The common law never provided such a right which is a part of the abortion decision. Common law differentiated between murder and abortion based on the viability of the fetus. Further, there was no such common law right to be born as the anti-abortion and anti-contraception would like the courts to find. The anti-abortion movement is the product of religious leaders who are determined to overturn Roe v. Wade. Many churches have crossed the fine line between religion and politics, but the IRS is reluctant to go after those religious bodies. Personally, I think that if churches have money for the anti-abortion/anti-contraception activities, they do not need your money for other things. I just wish a lot of people felt this way and stopped giving any money to the churches. That would convince them to get out of politics or go bankrupt.
After watching an interview on CNN with a gentleman who purchased a billboard and advertised the fact his ex-girlfriend aborted his child, it is obvious where the religious, conservatives, and Tea Party factions feel about women's place in the Universe. As he stated,"This is not about her, but about how I feel." The men (and women) who feel compelled to re-litigate Roe versus Wade should give birth to every unwanted pregnancy--especially the men.
Unfortunately, this serendipitous political windfall inside The Tea Party phenomenon found by Rapture believers ultimately affects the entire political landscape. Considering this is 2011 ADE, our country is regressing back to the Dark Ages; soon we will shackle women and insist they bear lots and lots of hard working children.
The consequences of these political regressions by our nation could not have come at a worse time in our history. We leaped into the 21st century by elevating a male slave and even considered a woman to high office, but these growing pains are----breaking us apart.
Has any of you attempted to hold a logical debate with these fanatics? It is similar to speaking a White Supremist; White Power! White Power! greets you when you say something intelligent; Rapture fanatics defer logic to one of many, many religious books in existence. Are we doomed?
The anti-abortion fanatics should be fought with the same intensity for pro-choice. It is up to women to organize and fight these groups. The women need to start picking off anti-abortion candidates in each state. That will mean going into Bible Belt states and working a few districts. When enough anti-abortion candidates lose, the dialogue will change.
The second part of the equation is to make religious leaders and groups feel financial pressure. That will involve getting people to withhold contributions and assembling materials from these groups to send to the IRS. It will also mean picketing religious leaders, groups and individuals who are organizing or helping these groups. They need to feel the same pressure that they exert on abortion clinics.
Anti-abortionists continue to argue as if proponents for reproductive rights themselves believe that a zygote, embryo or fetus is a person.