Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: Movie director “get out of rape free” card works on public, not on courts Previous entry: Buttars: Gays ‘greatest threat to America’

Another attempt to grant sperm more rights than women

The sperm-worshipping crowd managed to sneak in a victory almost under the radar yesterday when the state house of North Dakota passed what will probably prove to be a complete ban on abortion, and quite possibly on most female-controlled types of contraception.  Because anti-choice nuts can’t fucking breathe without lying, the assholes who did this are denying that’s what they did. 

The measure’s sponsor, Rep. Dan Ruby, R-Minot, said the legislation did not automatically ban abortion. Ruby has introduced bills in previous sessions of the Legislature to prohibit abortion in North Dakota.

It’s one of those damn “personhood” bills that would define fertilized eggs as persons.  Even though eggs are what are mentioned, the reality is that bills like this are about granting sperm more rights than women.  It’s about making sure that sperm, once released inside women, are not obstructed from impregnating a woman and maintaining that pregnancy.  I say that this about sperm vs. women, because men will still have full legal rights to tell their sperm where to go and what to do. Men will be allowed to shoot sperm in socks or condoms or wherever they wish without running afoul the law.  But women will not be allowed to interfere with a sperm’s mission once it’s inside her.  She may not use contraceptive pills to keep the sperm from finding an egg.  IUDs may not emasculate the sperm by ruining its motility and keeping it from an egg.  She may not have an abortion to prevent the sperm from finishing its work once it’s fertilized an egg. 

I say this bill is about putting sperm over women, because men often put sperm in women without wishing to impregnate them.  Duh.  I’m sure your anti-choice nuts think men who have sex with women on hormonal contraception are either emasculated or sleaze or both, but the reality-based community realizes this isn’t true.  But while sperm don’t really have intentions in the human sense, they’re perceived as having purpose, and these laws are about making sure women have no way to interfere with the sperm’s purpose once the man has relinquished control.  The point of these bills is create this hierarchy of rights-bearing beings in the U.S. as such:


Men
Sperm
Women

Vegetables will still have fewer rights than women, because women need to chop vegetables (and meat!) for men to eat.  So take that small comfort.

Personhood amendments are all the rage because some anti-choicer, many years ago, came up with the brilliant idea that if you repeated the lie that hormonal contraception is abortion long enough, people would believe it.  And sadly, it’s worked.  Even many pro-choicers blithely, if accidentally, repeat the myth that birth control pills work first by suppressing ovulation and then by expelling fertilized eggs if the former doesn’t work.  There is no evidence that this is true.  None.  Zilch. Zip.  There’s been some speculation, but it’s probably not wise speculation, because the birth control pill is so successful at suppressing ovulation that there’s no reason to think that a “back-up” method would improve effectiveness. The pill has a 1% failure rate, so that inclines me to think that, on the rare occasion an egg slips off an ovary and gets fertilized, it sticks.  More interestingly, there’s an 8% failure rate for actual use, which means women who occasionally skip pills or don’t take them at the same time every day, despite having the same thin uterine lining as the women who take it religiously.  But some anti-choicers believe the pill works primarily by casting off fertilized eggs.  I believe they believe this out of convenience, and because it symbolizes their fears about how female-controlled contraception is a rejection of male power and mandatory motherhood.

This bit of scientific misinformation is so widespread, we made a video to combat it.


RH Reality Check: Emergency Contraception Vs. Abortion from Stuart Productions on Vimeo.

But we’re not talking about people who respect science in the slightest, so this sort of reality will likely have no effect in their attempts to use this bill, should it become law, to attack abortion and female-controlled contraception.  Check out how the bill is worded:

The bill declares that “any organism with the genome of homo sapiens” is a person protected by rights granted by the North Dakota Constitution and state laws.

See, told you this about sperm rights, especially since people tend to think of sperm—-which are actually just cells with only 50% of the DNA of most cells, but seem to be little creatures unto themselves.  I’m sure there’s giant issues with the very phrasing of this law, and I hope so, because I think that’s what will probably kill it before it’s signed into law.  I only wish that the sense that women are human beings with full rights would kill it. 

 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Amanda Marcotte on 10:37 PM • (72) Comments

You skipped a step:

Men > fetuses > sperm > women. (There is surely a hierarchy running the gamut from individual sperm through fertilized egg, blastocyst, embryo, and fetus, but I bundled those last four together in one category.)

As Twisty just said, “women are really only fully human until we are born.”

Comment #1: Orange  on  02/18  at  10:48 PM

Uh, aren’t cancer cells “organisms with the genome of homo sapiens”?  Doesn’t that mean that you’ll need a court order to get a tumor removed from now on?

Comment #2: Mnemosyne  on  02/18  at  10:59 PM

Unfuckingbelievable.

I really don’t care if a fertilized egg is a person.  No person has a right to enslave me, glom onto my body, and use it for life support against my will.

I chose to bear each fertilized egg that implanted.  It was no picnic.  Those little people, should they ever require my bone marrow or a kidney or part of my liver—would get it because I love them and would do anything for them.

Because I choose to do so.  Simply being my child is not enough to grant them my body in any legal sense.  No legal body would agree to let a doctor saw out a kidney even if it meant saving my child’s life if I didn’t agree to it.

But a fertilized egg is allowed to use me for life support?  I do not think so.  That is utterly fucked.  As much as the right likes to call gay rights “special rights”, this is a case where a fetus is being granted ‘special’ rights that no other living human being is allowed.

You cannot force someone to give you an organ.  You cannot even force them to give you a pint of blood.  Even if you will die if they don’t.  No one has the right to enslave another.

What the fuck is wrong in North Dakota?

Comment #3: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  02/18  at  11:00 PM

Yep, cancer, molar pregnancies, ectopic pregnancies all have the human genome and will apparently be protected from extraction from the walking uterus.

Comment #4: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  02/18  at  11:01 PM

I can’t imagine this surviving one minute in the courts, if it passes.

This is about this Ruby preening for the anti-abortion gallery. Not to be sanguine, but if he weren’t doing this, he’d probably be up to something genuinely harmful.

Comment #5: Bitter Scribe  on  02/18  at  11:02 PM

When do they arrest the Greatest Abortionist of All Time ... GOD?

You would think that if they really cared about the personhood of a fertilized egg, they would be praying and praying and praying that their God would stop His reign of terror and endless stream of murders.

Comment #6: Ms Kate  on  02/18  at  11:04 PM

“Vegetables will still have fewer rights than women, because women need to chop vegetables (and meat!) for men to eat.”

I heard the Mormons are floating the idea of a bill granting broccoli-heads above a certain size full personhood…

Comment #7: MikeEss  on  02/18  at  11:10 PM

Although the intent of this travesty is obvious, I don’t see the parts of the state constitution or the state laws that allow one person to hook themselves up to another person’s bloodstream and take up residence inside their body without consent. What it would mean, though, is that you would need judicial approval to do skin grafts, transplants, tissue typing, transfusions—and, as Caren points out, forget about treating teratomas or other tumors. Heck, it’s not clear to me that you could legally sew a detached limb back on without a full bench trial.

Comment #8: paul  on  02/18  at  11:13 PM

platelet donations ar banned under this too.

Comment #9: Ms Kate  on  02/18  at  11:25 PM

Ms Kate:

I think platelets, like red blood cells, don’t have cell nuclei, hence no (complete) human genome. Of course, if you take the thing completely literally, a spitball should be able to run for public office.

Comment #10: paul  on  02/18  at  11:30 PM

sorry - white blood cells do have nuclei.  That’s what I was thinking of.

Not that your typical science-hating wingnut would be that versed on reality.

Comment #11: Ms Kate  on  02/18  at  11:35 PM

I have to go see my dentist now.

See, I just gritted my teeth so hard over this they shattered.

I’m holding these fuckers responsible for my dental bills.

Comment #12: Blue Fielder  on  02/18  at  11:35 PM

The idea that men are exemplified by their anatomy—or indeed their sperm—is rather masochistic on the part of the men who believe in it.  Such males apparently take delight in touting their own ignorance.

Comment #13: scratchy888  on  02/18  at  11:38 PM

On the other hand, if I move to North Dakota and establish a million little cell-culture vials, I should be able to collect AFDC for every damn one of them and use the money to fund campaigns to replace these legislators with sane people…

It’s OK, Ms Kate. Heat of the moment and all that. Ooh, but what happens if you ship a bunch of chimeric mice to North Dakota? You could let them free to forage and it would be a capital crime to exterminate them…

Comment #14: paul  on  02/18  at  11:42 PM

I see now why it was so crucial for the wingnuts to protest Biology classes and get their children to begin with an antagonistic relationship with the teachers. It isn’t just the obvious like the reproductive anatomy chapter that demonstrates the real pathway of blastocytes and fetuses and the massive natural miscarriage rate, nor those demon-spawned evolution chapters.

Rather it’s page one where they note the most famous bullshit case in Biology was the myth of the homonculus where a man’s sperm created the child in the empty meaningless vessel known as the woman.

Maybe it’s why they’re in fever pitch before the reproductive anatomy section. If people who didn’t want to be biologists, say laypeople even could put those two facts together, no one would listen to one of these sick egotists ever again, “oh no babies” be damned.

Comment #15: Cerberus  on  02/18  at  11:53 PM

Any news on whether the human genome has to be haploid (i.e., sperm, egg) or diploid? [/snark] They really are morons.  I can’t wait for ND to lead the nation in teen pregnancy and out-of-state abortions….

Comment #16: Mike the Mad Biologist  on  02/19  at  12:08 AM

Mike: Just as long as it contains both an X and a Y it’s got full rights.

Comment #17: paul  on  02/19  at  12:10 AM

Just a Y chromosome ... those X chromosomes are feminizing.

Comment #18: Ms Kate  on  02/19  at  12:19 AM

Holy crap.  Though, if they pass this, as paul says, there’s money to be made in bilking the state for all those little “people” who will forever be declared as dependents as long as they’re on ice in IFV clinics.

Comment #19: UltraMagnus  on  02/19  at  12:29 AM

Come on, it’s funny. It’s the “masturbation is murder” bill!

Comment #20: bad Jim  on  02/19  at  12:42 AM

I posted this same comment at Shakes, but I’m hoping that someone either picks it up, or explains patiently to me why I’m wrong. I’d like to know why everyone’s just taking it for granted that what Ruby says is true. It seems to me that it most explicitly is NOT.
———————————————————————————————————————
In the article I first saw (http://www.kxmc.com/getArticle.asp?ArticleId=333726):
———————————————————————————————————————
He also sponsored today’s bill and says it is compatable with Roe versus Wade - the Supreme Court decision which legalized abortion.

(Rep. Dan Ruby, -R- Minot) “This is the exact language that’s required by Roe vs. Wade. It stipulated that before a challenge can be made, we have to identify when life begins, and that’s what this does.”
—————————————————————————————————————
I read that and thought, “wait, what? Where does it say that?”
—————————————————————————————————————
From the majority opinion in Roe (http://supreme.justia.com/us/410/113/case.html):
—————————————————————————————————————
The third reason is the State’s interest—some phrase it in terms of duty—in protecting prenatal life. Some of the argument for this justification rests on the theory that a new human life is present from the moment of conception. The State’s interest and general obligation to protect life then extends, it is argued, to prenatal life. Only when the life of the pregnant mother herself is at stake, balanced against the life she carries within her, should the interest of the embryo or fetus not prevail. Logically, of course, a legitimate state interest in this area need not stand or fall on acceptance of the belief that life begins at conception or at some other point prior to live birth. In assessing the State’s interest, recognition may be given to the less rigid claim that as long as at least potential life is involved, the State may assert interests beyond the protection of the pregnant woman alone.

Parties challenging state abortion laws have sharply disputed in some courts the contention that a purpose of these laws, when enacted, was to protect prenatal life. Pointing to the absence of legislative history to support the contention, they claim that most state laws were designed solely to protect the woman. Because medical advances have lessened this concern, at least with respect to abortion in early pregnancy, they argue that with respect to such abortions the laws can no longer be justified by any state interest. There is some scholarly support for this view of original purpose. The few state courts called upon to interpret their laws in the late 19th and early 20th centuries did focus on the State’s interest in protecting the woman’s health, rather than in preserving the embryo and fetus. Proponents of this view point out that in many States, including Texas, by statute or judicial interpretation, the pregnant woman herself could not be prosecuted for self-abortion or for cooperating in an abortion performed upon her by another. They claim that adoption of the “quickening” distinction through received common law and state statutes tacitly recognizes the greater health hazards inherent in late abortion and impliedly repudiates the theory that life begins at conception.

...We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.

...In view of all this, we do not agree that, by adopting one theory of life, Texas may override the rights of the pregnant woman that are at stake.
—————————-
I am confused. Was this requirement to determine when life begins in a dissent? Am I misreading this? Also, why can’t journalists spell anymore?

Comment #21: Abra  on  02/19  at  12:46 AM

I should post something about what a travesty this is - and it is - but I am stunned by that photograph. That’s amazing.

Comment #22: chingona  on  02/19  at  01:03 AM

I’ve got a friend, a very Catholic, very pro-life friend, who has had trouble getting and/or staying pregnant. About a year ago, she had a baby, but since her periods came back, her cycles are short, only about 22 days. She wants to get pregnant again, but apparently 22 days is too short for the uterus to build up enough lining to support a fertilized egg trying to implant. But I haven’t seen her contemplating not having sex until her cycle gets longer, just in case she creates any fertilized eggs that will be doomed.  Infuriatingly, she actually refers to the embryo as a baby, as in “the baby may not be able to implant.” She’s my friend and I love her, but this really irritates me.

Comment #23: apsalar  on  02/19  at  01:30 AM

I have to go see my dentist now.

See, I just gritted my teeth so hard over this they shattered.

I’m holding these fuckers responsible for my dental bills.

I hope not.  According to the law in the state of North Dakota, you just committed multiple murder.

Comment #24: KeithM  on  02/19  at  04:05 AM

And I’m just sure that Dan Ruby is very conscientious about collecting the epithelials and fingerprint oil he leaves on all the surfaces in his environment.

Of course, he does it because all those “organisms within the genome of homo sapiens” deserve the same legal protections as anyone else. It’s totally not because he doesn’t want the medical examiner to find his DNA on the 15 dead prostitutes sealed under his basement floor.

Comment #25: Dan, Grand High Emperor of Bananas Foster  on  02/19  at  04:34 AM

I dunno about that order. Say a man wants the woman he impregnated to have an abortion but, of course, according to ND law, she can’t. Wouldn’t that mean sperm have more rights than men, not the other way around?

Comment #26: daphne  on  02/19  at  04:42 AM

I’ve been spending more time thinking about this lately, and wrote this post on dailykos about my own experiences.  I’m also reading 2 great books on the subject: A Defense of Abortion and This Common Secret: My Journey as an Abortion Doctor.  I recommend both books highly (I think one or both of them have already been recommended on this blog).

Unfortunately, I don’t believe that anti-abortionists will change their minds simply by knowing how many people in their lives have been involved with abortions.  Many of them display incredible amounts of hypocrisy, even calling abortion doctors murderers as they wait for their own abortions.

Comment #27: Mrs. W  on  02/19  at  05:19 AM

Another point, since I’ve been teaching this for the last month: an organism is defined as “a living thing that can live and function independently”.  Since zygotes and fetuses cannot function independently until 20-24 weeks, this definition rules out some 90% of abortions.  Unfortunately, there are still some later term abortions, performed for the health of the mother, that would be restricted.

Comment #28: Mrs. W  on  02/19  at  05:26 AM

Somebody had to do it: Every Sperm is Sacred.  Do it like in the movie, everybody sing along.

and Wikipedia gives the gestational age at the time of induced abortion: 88.2% at less than 12 weeks, 10.4% between weeks 13 and 20 and 1.4% after 20 weeks.

Since the human genome has 46 chromosomes [usually] the haploid genome in sperm would not make it a full human genome.  As to cancer cells, most of them would not qualify as human because they are aneuploid - having broken chromosomes, chromosome segments deleted, extra sets of some chromosomes, etc.

Another picky pedant point with that law: you couldn’t give a transfusion unless all the wihte blood cells are reinfused back into you.

Comment #29: natural cynic  on  02/19  at  06:19 AM

You left out a few in the hierarchy, Amanda:

Men
Death Row Inmates
Corpses
Sperm/Fertilized Eggs
Women

After all, even death row inmates, though they have lost their right to life, have not lost their right to bodily sovereignty. They may not be forced to donate organs or tissues, not even blood and bone marrow (the extraction of which is far less onerous than pregnancy and labor) even for the benefit of their victims. Useful tissues and organs cannot be extracted from a corpse without the specific consent of the deceased or his family, even though the corpse is dead and would thus not be at all inconvenienced by having its tissues and organs extracted to preserve life. It is only women, whose bodies are obviously community property, whose bodily sovereignty is a casualty to the zygote/embryo/fetus’s “right to life.” Mother is Woman’s natural role, which is why we must be forced into it.

Comment #30: BJ Survivor  on  02/19  at  07:31 AM

So, would this bill grant automatic US citizenship to all the embryos of the world? Can a state do that? These people are just so absurd.

I have this fantastic vision of all the pregnant, undocumented workers in the US going to ND to rally in the support of this bill. I suspect that’ll put an end to all this nonsense pretty quickly.

Comment #31: antiope  on  02/19  at  10:09 AM

So if life begins at fertilization, do they count age from conception date?  Maybe all the 17 year-old anti-choice people just want to be able to look at porn 9 months early.

Also, by using hormonal contraception, I’m more pro-life than any of these crazy people.  When I have my period, I don’t have to worry about a dead baby that God killed being there, because I didn’t have any eggs to be made into life in the first place.

As to cancer cells, most of them would not qualify as human because they are aneuploid - having broken chromosomes, chromosome segments deleted, extra sets of some chromosomes, etc.

What about people with Down syndrome?  They have an extra chromosome.  So since they are considered human, then you should also count cancer cells that have extra chromosomes, according to this proposed legislation.

Comment #32: bananacat  on  02/19  at  10:12 AM

The State’s interest and general obligation to protect life then extends, it is argued, to prenatal life. Only when the life of the pregnant mother herself is at stake, balanced against the life she carries within her, should the interest of the embryo or fetus not prevail.

No.  Just no.  That prenatal life may be protected, but not at the enslavement of another life.  You cannot force anyone to donate organs, much less a pint of blood.  You cannot force a woman to gestate.

Pregnancy is not an inconvenience and it’s not trivial.  It is a big honking deal that can, even in the United States—fuck up a woman’s health for life.  No one should be forced into it.

Just…no.  A fetus’ life is NOT worth more than an already living and breathing woman’s.  The argument above reduces a woman to an incubator and denies her humanity.  Fuck that shit.

Comment #33: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  02/19  at  10:21 AM

“I have this fantastic vision of all the pregnant, undocumented workers in the US going to ND to rally in the support of this bill.”

...unfortunately, all too many of these brave defenders of germ cells and blastocysts would happily shoot undocumented people (probably even those with occupied wombs) while proudly carrying signs proclaiming the sanctity of life…unless they had to put their signs down for better aim…

Comment #34: MikeEss  on  02/19  at  10:26 AM

...an organism is defined as “a living thing that can live and function independently”. Since zygotes and fetuses cannot function independently until 20-24 weeks, this definition rules out some 90% of abortions.  Unfortunately, there are still some later term abortions, performed for the health of the mother, that would be restricted.
Mrs. W on 02/19 at 12:26 AM

That sounds like a reasonable definition that biological scientists use; unfortunately we are dealing here with legal definitions. The only people who rule on the validity of legal definitions are not scientists, but judges.

This thing can’t just be viewed in its impact on the people of North Dakota; what is ominous is that it is a setup for the courts, leading obviously to the US Supreme Court, to rule on it.

If SCOTUS affirms this “definition,” no matter how absurd it is scientifically, then suddenly abortion would become a capital crime in every state in the Union, never mind the merits of the arguments in Roe. The Court would be taking the ND legislature’s take on the matter that it once observed was not settled by consensus as being the consensus.

The reason that, in the early 1970s when Roe was decided, the Court majority could observe a lack of consensus on the question of when human life begins, has nothing to do with how advanced biology was at that point. (This is important to note because anti-choicers often do argue that we should revisit Roe because of advances in science since then.) The very question, “at what moment does a new human life begin,” is badly posed and there can be no right answer that isn’t glaringly arbitrary, because the development of a new human life is inherently a process. Scientifically speaking, the “line” between “no new human life” and “definitely a baby” is nine months thick and is called “pregnancy.”

This is precisely where I center my own radical belief in a woman’s right to choose whether or not to continue a pregnancy. In humanistic, ethical, and ideally legal terms, there is a clear, sharp, bright line to draw—and that is, the woman’s choice. When she decides she will continue this pregnancy she had decided she will have a baby, and that is a perfectly good line to use. If she has a miscarriage after that she has lost a child. If someone traumatizes her and causes that miscarriage, that person is guilty of manslaughter or homicide (as the details of the case prescribe based on the usual criteria of intent). Vice versa, if she has no intention to remain pregnant, there is no question of a human life whatsoever. (If someone traumatizes her before she aborts by her own chosen method and causes the miscarriage, she could still have recourse for harm against her own person. And if she retroactively declares she was so going to have the baby, for vindictive or whatever other purposes—I don’t care; people really shouldn’t go around traumatizing others against their will.)

This whole business of trying to find an “objective” line that ignores the will of the pregnant woman as irrelevant is dangerous at best—it should be obvious how much more dangerous it is at worst.

For instance, I understand that medieval Catholic theologians such as Thomas Aquinas did not agree with the allegedly infallible and unchanging “magisterium” of the modern Church that human life (ensoulment) simply began at conception; actually Aquinas and others followed a developmental theory that had different “parts” of the soul infused at different stages. (I also gather that this is the traditional, rabbinical Jewish view.) But Aquinas was no feminist! My guess is, the reason that the very misogynistic Fathers of the Church and their successors in the Middle Ages did not jump to the same conclusion as the modern hierarchy has adopted (flying in the face of science that does more to confirm than refute the pragmatic older view) was that they recognized, accepted, maybe even applauded, an abusive culture toward women in general. If a baby, a new soul, existed in the womb from the very instant of conception, there might be a period of months in which a man, acting as “king in his home” as the latter-day Promise Keepers point out is his allegedly divinely ordained role, might beat his wife, and cause a miscarriage. That would make that man a murderer, when all he was doing or intended to do was keep his woman in line! Couldn’t have that—hence the attractiveness of the doctrine of gradual ensoulment. By the time the precious new life was fully in place, the husband would know it and choose to punish his wench in ways that didn’t threaten the child.

I’m sure we can all think of hypothetical or even actual examples of this kind of rationalization for the sake of the status quo.

Forget this nonsense of stages, then, and simply respect a woman’s rights.

Comment #35: Mark Foxwell  on  02/19  at  11:25 AM

Infuriatingly, she actually refers to the embryo as a baby, as in “the baby may not be able to implant.” She’s my friend and I love her, but this really irritates me.

apsalar, ask your friend how she feels about all those babies that she’s killing.

Also, you better advise her to keep out of North Dakota.

Comment #36: ummeli  on  02/19  at  11:38 AM

Seriously, apsalar, ask her why she’s okay with aborting all those babies.  If her cycle is doomed to kill them, then she should stand by her convictions and use birth control to prevent the manslaughter.

And if it’s okay for her to create little babies that are doomed to die b/c she won’t (can’t) gestate them, what’s wrong with any other woman making the same decision?

She won’t see reason, of course, b/c many people with infertility problems are incapable of putting themselves in any other person’s shoes.  They want babies, and they can’t have them so anyone who refuses to gestate a baby is killing their baybeeee.  Logic is useless and unwanted.

Comment #37: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  02/19  at  12:12 PM

Caren -

Many people are incapable of putting themselves in any other person’s shoes, period.  They’re called conservatives.

Comment #38: Seraph  on  02/19  at  12:19 PM

As to cancer cells, most of them would not qualify as human because they are aneuploid - having broken chromosomes, chromosome segments deleted, extra sets of some chromosomes, etc.

I know Wikipedia isn’t definitive, but I think catgirl is right—if you’re going to discount cancer cells because they’re aneuploid, don’t you also have to say that it’s perfectly all right to abort fetuses with Down’s Syndrome and other chromosomal disorders?

And if we’re getting all medical, I assume this now means you have to have a court order to end an ectopic pregnancy.  Hopefully it won’t burst and kill you before the case makes its way through all of the appeals that I’m sure forced birthers will have set up to try and kill as many women as possible to prevent them from harming teh baybeez.

Comment #39: Mnemosyne  on  02/19  at  12:47 PM

I’ve gotten to the point where I feel literally ill every time I see this stuff come out of North Dakota. We need, so badly, an amendment on the Federal level to legalize abortion and birth control once and for all to stop this nonsense. Otherwise, they are just going to keep passing this stuff and sending it up to the Supreme Court in the hopes that they’ll get lucky.

(Other major fear: Will Obama’s “I reach out to conservatives” for cabinet appointments extend to Supreme Court appointments? Dear god, I pray not.)

I say this as a woman that will never have trouble having access to contraception. I say this as a woman whose life-partner has an extremely low sperm count for medical reasons so even if I did NOT have access to contraception, I’d still probably be casually infertile. And I say this as a woman who WANTS children and wouldn’t mind an “oops” or three.

In other words, I say this as a woman who has no “reason” (by wingnut logic) to oppose these legal gestures. But, by god, I care about this and it keeps me up at night. One woman dying from an ectopic pregnancy is too many. Hell, one woman carrying a healthy no-complications pregnancy against her will is STILL too many.

Will this EVER be over? Or do we have to fight this battle every day, for the rest of our lives?

Comment #40: Essie Elephant  on  02/19  at  12:58 PM

Amanda, et al -

As long as Shrub’s appointments form a working majority of the Supreme Court, the highest level of accomplishment, at law, to which women may aspire is ... chattel.

Packing the court is not an option.  We may not change the rules just because they’re inconvenient.  We must engender higher order of behavior and values starting not with our children, but with our parents.  Life itself is not the issue;  quality of life is the purpose behind all our cultural systems:  regulated capitalism, participatory democracy, a well-ordered militia subordinate to civilian authority, church & state separated and a national community of laws not cult of personality.  It is our mission to organise this unique combination to the benefit of the generations that follow, and educate the generations present.

Spermatazoan motility should never be the indicator of vitality!
.

Comment #41: BimBeau  on  02/19  at  12:59 PM

What are the implications for IVF treatment in the state of North Dakota? Will the National Guard prevent clinics from pouring any leftover embryonic citizens down the drain? What about taxes - are unborn babies eligible for child tax credits/deductions?  If you have leftover IVF embryos can you get them SSNs and deduct them too?

Comment #42: Yawgmoth  on  02/19  at  01:01 PM

...

Each individual sentence you wrote made sense, BimBeau, but they don’t really fit together into a coherent statement.  What is it you’re trying to say?

Comment #43: Seraph  on  02/19  at  01:05 PM

Caren—a lot of infertiles I’ve talked to are even more pro-choice because of infertility. Similarly, I know many pregnant women who are even more pro-choice because of pregnancy.

As a (finally successfully) pregnant infertile with a history of recurrent pregnancy loss, I can personally attest as to how little pro-lifers care about non-intentional pregnancy loss, and I’ve seen how much they’ll attack women who have to have those late term abortions to save their life. The hypocrisy boggles the mind.

Comment #44: Ashley  on  02/19  at  01:09 PM

“What are the implications for IVF treatment in the state of North Dakota?”

I have no idea, but I do know that some pro-lifers have latched onto the Nadya Suleman case claiming that she only did it because she saw each (frozen) embryo as a life and a child and didn’t want to not turn them into babies….

Which doesn’t make any sense if she was willing to freeze embryos in the first place, but pro-lifers and the logic just don’t go together.

Comment #45: Ashley  on  02/19  at  01:10 PM

Oh, these laws would make IVF impossible.

Comment #46: Amanda Marcotte  on  02/19  at  01:16 PM

Caren - the quote you are disputing so heartily is from, er, Justice Blackmun’s opinion in Roe v. Wade.  Now, on to Mark Foxwell -

That sounds like a reasonable definition that biological scientists use; unfortunately we are dealing here with legal definitions. The only people who rule on the validity of legal definitions are not scientists, but judges.

True, but judges take scientific opinions into effect when deciding on the validity of laws.

This thing can’t just be viewed in its impact on the people of North Dakota; what is ominous is that it is a setup for the courts, leading obviously to the US Supreme Court, to rule on it.

There seems no reason to doubt that the courts will strike down this piece of silly grandstanding, and <strike>the Supreme Court</strike> Justice Kennedy certainly isn’t going to overrule Roe v. Wade on the basis of this joke of a law.

If SCOTUS affirms this “definition,” no matter how absurd it is scientifically, then suddenly abortion would become a capital crime in every state in the Union, never mind the merits of the arguments in Roe. The Court would be taking the ND legislature’s take on the matter that it once observed was not settled by consensus as being the consensus.

Well, firstly, that’s obviously not true, since there are several states that don’t have the death penalty.  Secondly, it’s not true because even if the Supreme Court ruled that North Dakota was justified in making such a definition of who counts as a person, that very distinctly does not mean that they would be imposing such a decision on every other state.  Thirdly, as noted above, the Court is not going to affirm this ridiculous law.

Comment #47: jlk7e  on  02/19  at  01:22 PM

(Other major fear: Will Obama’s “I reach out to conservatives” for cabinet appointments extend to Supreme Court appointments? Dear god, I pray not.)

I doubt it.  When you get right down to it, cabinet members are his advisors and assistants.  Powerful as they might be, he’s their boss.  That means he can surround himself with a variety of viewpoints based on his opinion of their expertise (as opposed to Shrub, who surrounded himself with people whose primary qualification was agreeing with him), and not fear that one side will grow too powerful…they have only the power he gives them.  Hell, it could be a useful way of Keeping His Enemies Closer.

The Supreme Court is a different story entirely.  Once appointed, they’re outside his power, and their power lasts for life.  He may not be as Progressive as we’d like (though he’s actually done pretty well so far - if nothing else, the Lily Ledbetter act establishes some feminist cred for him), but he’s not going to saddle his daughters with another Scalia for the sake of reaching out to conservatives. 

Will this EVER be over?

No.  Look at white supremacist groups: even if they’re not writing the law of the land anymore, they’re still out there.  The best we can hope for is a similar degree of marginalization.

Or do we have to fight this battle every day, for the rest of our lives?

Probably, but who knows?  When Obama was born, the big national debate was desegregation.  A lot can happen in a lifetime. 


Or do we have to fight this battle every day, for the rest of our lives?

Comment #48: Seraph  on  02/19  at  01:28 PM

“Organism?” “Genome?” “Homo sapiens?” And you say these people don’t respect science!

Comment #49: Emily  on  02/19  at  02:07 PM

“Organism?” “Genome?” “Homo sapiens?” And you say these people don’t respect science!
Emily on 02/19 at 12:07 PM

No, not science—science-iness!

Comment #50: ugirl  on  02/19  at  02:24 PM

The bill declares that “any organism with the genome of homo sapiens” is a person protected by rights granted by the North Dakota Constitution and state laws.

Huh. You know, I bet there’s a lab somewhere in North Dakota which has been routinely cleaning the HeLa out of their samples. Man, they’re screwed. (Sure, the HeLa genome isn’t the same as the human one, but I’m pretty sure it’s a superset—polyploid, like a zygote with trisomy 21.)

On a more serious note, this will, of course, force women to carry anencephalic fetuses to term, which is just another astonishingly squicky consequence of this sort of magical thinking. But, hey, it’s not like a dude has to carry a brainless flesh-doll for months on end until its certain and inevitable expiration.

Comment #51: grendelkhan  on  02/19  at  02:29 PM

Well, at least we can still abort all the human-horse and human-chicken hybrids we’ll start to see because of all Teh Gays getting married.

Comment #52: deep6  on  02/19  at  02:39 PM

Just wondering, if you’re a woman and one of your eggs is fertilized, and through no intentional act of your own the fertilized egg is naturally flushed out of your body, can you be prosecuted for negligent homicide?  And if you don’t provide the ideal conditions under which a fertilized egg can implant and develop, are you thus guilty of child abuse?

Comment #53: deep6  on  02/19  at  02:44 PM

Deep6, I suspect yes.

Where’s that article about the guy who would make it a law to have to report a miscarriage within 12 hours to the police? I remember being VERY ill over that.

Comment #54: Essie Elephant  on  02/19  at  02:58 PM

on the bright side, maybe the looming spectre of laws like this will encourage the powers that be (aka the drug companies and the (non-government) people that fund them) to develop an actual male birth control that’s at least comparable in effectiveness and ease of use to female-centric birth control.

on the other hand, if this shit does pass, or even comes CLOSE to passing, i’m getting myself sterilized. and then i’m going to send the bill for the procedure to the ND legislature.

Comment #55: akzidenzgrotesk  on  02/19  at  03:22 PM

Since U.S. citizens are persons born or naturalized in the United States, these new people are illegal immigrants.  To what location should they be deported?

Comment #56: Fatman  on  02/19  at  03:39 PM

akzidenzgrotesk: on the bright side, maybe the looming spectre of laws like this will encourage the powers that be (aka the drug companies and the (non-government) people that fund them) to develop an actual male birth control that’s at least comparable in effectiveness and ease of use to female-centric birth control.

The science isn’t the primary issue. Feel free to headdesk while reading.

Also, I found a summary of hilarious consequences of this sort of magical thinking which I wrote about two years ago. The responses were that I was “way in over my head”, that basing a definition of humanity on the formation of a functioning mind is no less magical thinking than the Magic Sperm method, that by my logic, they should be allowed to murder me, and finally, of course, “if you can’t abide the consequences of sex, don’t have sex”.

It’s nice to see that this kind of madness can at least maintain consistency.

Comment #57: grendelkhan  on  02/19  at  03:39 PM

*head desk head desk head desk*

Oh God, I am so completely embarrassed to live here right now.  I mean, we have our share of fundy nuts, but the libertarian streak has in the past tended to overrule those who delight in poking their nose under everyone’s sheets.

They really, really, really don’t think this shit through.  ND has a problem keeping young people in the state to begin with; laws like this that could very well ban hormonal birth control will lead to hemorrhaging, especially as people who like their BC move across the river to MN in the border cities.

And those are the effects that the legislators will actually care about.  Time to hop on over to PP of MN/SD/ND website and see if they have any plans to stall this…thing…in the Senate.

Comment #58: Karinna A.  on  02/19  at  04:18 PM

Anyone know where I can get a link to the exact language of the bill.  I’m not finding it on the ND legislative website.

Comment #59: DonnaDiva  on  02/19  at  04:44 PM

a spitball should be able to run for public office

It has and has made this law!

Comment #60: Renmiri  on  02/19  at  05:00 PM

When abortion was banned in South Dakota, it didn’t last very long (less than a year, IIRC).  We shouldn’t give up hope on North Dakota yet.

Comment #61: bananacat  on  02/19  at  05:30 PM

So now non-embryonic stem cells are people, too? Guess scientists can go back to the baby-killing if trying to use skin cells won’t make a legal difference anyways. 9.9

Comment #62: Bagelsan  on  02/19  at  05:39 PM

Worse yet, N.D. law would make it illegal to treat tubal and other ectopic pregnancies - and gestational trophoblastic diseases (aka: hydatidiform mole, choriocarcinoma, etc - autonomous non-fetus-containing placenta-derived growth, with genome differing from mother’s). Both types of disease can kill women. Tubal pregnancies are quite common and typically manifest emergently as breakthrough vaginal bleeding. When tubal pregnancies rupture, they can produce massive bleeding, and women can bleed to death.

Comment #63: NancyP  on  02/19  at  06:11 PM

ms kate, platelet transfusions would be allowed, because platelets are merely little fragments of cytoplasm, and don’t contain a nucleus.

Comment #64: NancyP  on  02/19  at  06:13 PM

I found it!  It’s House Resolution 1572. 

SECTION 1. References to individual, person, or human being - Legislative
intent. For purposes of interpretation of the constitution and laws of North Dakota, it is the
intent of the legislative assembly that an individual, a person, when the context indicates that a
reference to an individual is intended, or a human being includes any organism with the
genome of homo sapiens.

Comment #65: DonnaDiva  on  02/19  at  07:01 PM

it is the intent of the legislative assembly that an individual, a person, when the context indicates that a reference to an individual is intended, or a human being includes any organism with the genome of homo sapiens.

An embryo is an organism now? I don’t see how this language clears anything up.

Comment #66: kaninchen  on  02/19  at  07:15 PM

...Thirdly, as noted above, the Court is not going to affirm this ridiculous law.
jlk7e on 02/19 at 08:22 AM

Hope you’re right about that, of course. You ought to be. But after Bush v Gore, is there any reason to assume that the Court will always let good sense prevail over ideological agenda?

The best reason to assume the court’s reactionaries won’t do something so drastic is that actually, if they “win” their battle, we can expect political support for the Right to plummet; impeachment of the Justices would not be out of the question. As long as the spectre of legal abortion remains, the Right can count on support from certain sectors that would not be so sure without it; meanwhile a lot of other people would get seriously outraged. It wouldn’t be an abstraction; case by case, women faced with terrible choices and the people who care about them would accumulate fast, and I think a critical number of people would not wait for it to affect them personally. (In fact, it does affect us all personally, whether we realize it or not).

So I’d be trusting more to cynical good sense than any ethical kind, you see.

...Secondly, it’s not true because even if the Supreme Court ruled that North Dakota was justified in making such a definition of who counts as a person, that very distinctly does not mean that they would be imposing such a decision on every other state.

Entirely speculative. If a case works its way up to the Supreme Court, it will accumulate a lot of precedential and political baggage on the way. (Again, it seems likely that the latter at any rate would make upholding the law in any degree, on any pretext, politically radioactive. But then again, US reactionaries thrive on controversy).

But if it gets there, we don’t know what sort of grounds a hypothetical (but quite likely) majority determined to uphold it would choose. They could limit themselves as you describe, but I don’t see why they’d have to. Politically, it might be smart to kick the matter to individual states, but a lot of people just assume that the “let the states decide” rhetoric is somehow founded on some obvious state’s prerogative in these matters. But clearly it isn’t; at best that might be expedient, but there is no reason why such weighty matters are inherently something for individual states to decide.

Your first point—that not all states have capital punishment—is true enough; for that matter not all murders result in the supreme punishment. But I don’t want to see anyone serving any time at all for exercising or facilitating what I think is a basic and important right. The point is, it can go from a protected right to the most severe category of felony in a few strokes of the pen, if a case comes before the Supreme Court.

As for your Zeroth Point:

...judges take scientific opinions into effect when deciding on the validity of laws.

I laugh.

Yes, that is what I think sensible judges should do. Yes, that is what a lot of them have done. But there is no guarantee that the kind of right-wingers the Court (and many positions in lower courts) have been packed with these past 30 years or so will do that if it doesn’t suit them.

And the whole business of deferring to academic experts in matters of expert knowledge has been called explicitly into question by these very kinds of judges and law clerks. Supposedly, the Warren Court was wrong to listen to sociologists when deciding such cases as Brown v Board of Education; that’s not adhering to the Founders intentions; that’s allowing our view of what the law is evolve according to changing social standards.

Which of course I think is only sensible, but pay attention to what people like Rehnquist said, or what Scalia or Alito say, and you can see they have a different opinion.

They sit on the court; neither you nor I do.

(Unless you are Ginsburg, Breyer, Souter, or one of that lot…)

Comment #67: Mark Foxwell  on  02/19  at  08:53 PM

Caren—a lot of infertiles I’ve talked to are even more pro-choice because of infertility. Similarly, I know many pregnant women who are even more pro-choice because of pregnancy.

That’s why I said “many” and not “most”.  I’m glad you know people who can cope with infertility without being asses.  I happen to know several people who cannot.

As for pregnancy making you more pro-choice, that’s me.

Caren - the quote you are disputing so heartily is from, er, Justice Blackmun’s opinion in Roe v. Wade.

That’s irrelevant.  The whole shit of ‘protecting’ a fetus by forcing a woman to gestate it is evil.  The fact that even Roe allows for it, and Roe is supposed to protect us, just indicates how fucked up we are.

No other human is allowed to glom onto another for life support.  That’s not a right.

Any woman who decides to gestate should be treated with respect—it’s a huge deal and a huge effort.  Any woman who decides not to gestate should be treated with respect—it’s a huge deal to be in control of your bodily autonomy.

The fact that our laws are written in ways that reduce women to walking uteruses is why fighting for abortion rights is so important.  This ND law is stupid, but the ass who brought it up is not alone and was not laughed out of the room for proposing it.

Comment #68: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  02/19  at  08:54 PM

Hmm, if you’re going to put organisms containing a human genome in every law in the state where an individual is mentioned, any embryo is guilty of assault, assault and battery causing grievous bodily harm, quite possibly attempted murder, not to mention rape, theft, unlawful imprisonment. And of course the mother is guilty of unlawful imprisonment, probably sexual abuse of a minor (according to the words about nakedness and touching of genitals) and who knows what else. Obviously the only course of action is immediate separation of the two parties until investigation and trial are over.

Comment #69: paul  on  02/19  at  10:47 PM

Another point, since I’ve been teaching this for the last month: an organism is defined as “a living thing that can live and function independently”.  Since zygotes and fetuses cannot function independently until 20-24 weeks, this definition rules out some 90% of abortions.  Unfortunately, there are still some later term abortions, performed for the health of the mother, that would be restricted.
Mrs. W on 02/19 at 03:26 AM

Wait, what? If it can function independently, then why must it be housed INSIDE of a living, breathing, sentient woman? Push it out and see how it does on its own. If it has to be INSIDE a woman, it is NOT functioning independently. Period.

Comment #70: BJ Survivor  on  02/20  at  12:03 AM

I’m a little late to the comments, but folks might want take a look west of NoDak.  In Montana, <a >SB46</a> has passed the state Senate, and is headed to the House.  SB46 would put before the voters of the state the right to amend Article II, section 10 of our Constitution.  It currently reads:

“Section 10.  Right of privacy. The right of individual privacy is essential to the well-being of a free society and shall not be infringed without the showing of a compelling state interest.

If this bill makes it through the state Congress the voters will be asked to add this line to that Section:

The protection of unborn human life is a compelling state interest.”

Comment #71: Wulfgar  on  02/20  at  01:04 PM

Since zygotes and fetuses cannot function independently until 20-24 weeks, this definition rules out some 90% of abortions.

Um, no. Just no.  A 20-24 week fetus is not able to function independently.  Babies born prior to 36 weeks (in most cases) require substantial medical intervention to survive, requiring assistance to breathe, eat, and maintain a consistent body temperature. Premature birth is the leading cause of death among newborns.

Independent from a specific woman =/ independent function.

Comment #72: history_mom  on  02/21  at  04:44 AM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.