Next entry: Bumper crop of idiocy in SC
Previous entry: Dear Sir/Madam: Thank you for your submission. Your work shows promise; unfortunately...
Kudos to Hillary Clinton for putting her name to this article and distributing it on the internet. As I’ve said a million times before, the hardest part about talking to people about the anti-choice agenda is convincing them that the Fetus People are also out to get contraception banned---or at least severely limited---as well. Which is pretty stellar evidence that contrary to the mainstream media portrayal of the reproductive rights debate, this is not about whether or not the fetus is a person who deserves protection, but about sex and making sure that people, especially women, suffer for having a sexuality and making wingnuts uncomfortable. Obviously, anti-choicers prefer to wax poetic about the fetus because that makes them seem, while nutty, at least a little sympathetic, whereas the reality of their nature makes them seem like sadists and killjoys. It’s no wonder they’d like to define everything they don’t like as “abortion” to get more people to be wary of it. I suspect, if she could get away with it, Leslee Unruh would define speaking the word “condom” out loud as a form of abortion.
It would be funny if it weren’t for the fact that the idea that preventing pregnancy is a form of terminating pregnancy hadn’t found a foothold in the federal government. That the HHS under the Bush administration is seeking to define birth control pills and IUDs as “abortion” in its regulations on what a healthcare provider can refuse to do shows exactly how not stupid the crazy wingnuts are. I used to think that it was unlikely that they could get their new definition of “abortion” used to restrict contraception in any mainstream capacity, but as usual, I underestimated the Wingnutteria. They’re bound and determined to make ours a post-science society, and sometimes I think they’ll be able to succeed by sheer perseverance and of course, generous funding from rich right wingers.
But there is good news. I’m sure that most of you have tried and failed to convince people you know that anti-choicers really do have a complete agenda to squelch sexual freedom, and that they’re not just fetus worshippers. It’s hard to believe that people could be as crazy as the hard right anti-choicers, and it’s tempting to give them the benefit of the doubt. With this evidence in hand---evidence that anti-contraception nuttery has reached the federal level---you can go forth and start convincing people that activists who claim to be against “abortion” don’t mean the word in the same way you or I do, but tend to think of “abortion” as meaning “getting away with sexual behavior I disapprove of without dire consequences to your health and happiness”. For all I know, they’re trying to figure out a way to argue that drugs used to treat STIs are “abortion”.
Posted by
Amanda Marcotte on 03:53 PM •
Permalink
Yay Hillary! ^^ I read that article and thought it was pretty great.
Wow...under the new science-free definition of “abortion”, I find myself wondering how many “abortions” I’ve had...it must be somewhere in the range of 200 or more. Now, if abortion causes depression and suicidal tendencies, as the new South Dakota law says, and I’ve been having abortions monthly since the early ‘90s, I’m going to have to seriously reconsider whether the awesome happiness I feel when I wake up every day is actually me being really really sad. Hmmm…
Anyway, good on HRC!
anti-choicers really do have a complete agenda to squelch sexual freedom, and that they’re not just fetus worshippers.
I agree that this is a much better explanation for influential anti-choicers, but I have to wonder, what would be the point of pro-fetus rhetoric if it didn’t win over a lot of people on a lower level who would be turned off by explicit anti-sexual-freedom talk?
Everything’s abortion
Yay! A new Monty Python’s song! But in all seriousness and for the sake of American women’s and girls’ (and the international-victims’ of the Global Gag Rule) human rights and autonomy, this latest doublespeak campaign launched by the Bush Regime and their pro-Gilead accomplices must be exposed, brought to the attention of the MSM, and not allowed to become yet another *byproduct of the cowboy-chimp’s “legacy” (*Iraq, FISA, the “Patriot” Act, abstinence-only-"education," the world hating us, oh so little bandwidth for the rest and I don’t want to get carpal-tunnel). And it’s good to see HRC still alive and kickin’...and opinionated 
It ain’t just IUDs and the pill that fall under the new science-free definition. It’s been proven (OK, for some value of “proven” much better than the usual wingnut line of argument but still dicey) that the rhythm method causes the same kind of “abortion”, only in much greater numbers than the pill or IUDs. Even sex intended to result in pregnancy can cause abortion under the Bush definition.
Amanda:
Do you believe that (some/most/all) people who claim to be pro-life are really out to eliminate contraceptives (thereby punishing people, primarily women, who enjoy sex)? Just wondering.
Thanks,
Joe
I have to wonder, what would be the point of pro-fetus rhetoric if it didn’t win over a lot of people on a lower level who would be turned off by explicit anti-sexual-freedom talk?
Doesn’t matter. There are millions of devoutly religious married couples who are appalled at the idea of abortion, but who use birth control. Otherwise, every church-going family in America would have, um, a lot more kids.
I know my mainline denom is all for it, as sexuality (within marriage, of course) is considered a gift from God, but families are also expected to not bring more children into the world than they can handle, so birth control is just expected.
To my mind, the nutbars have just showed their ass.
It’s been proven...that the rhythm method causes the same kind of “abortion”, only in much greater numbers than the pill or IUDs.
Well, yeah. If you go by the wingnuts’ definition, God Godself is the biggest abortionist of ‘em all!
Well, yeah. If you go by the wingnuts’ definition, God Godself is the biggest abortionist of ‘em all!
Oh, so that’s the *real* reason why the anti-choicers and theocons hate facilities and organizations like Planned Parenthood. They’re stealing Gawd’s customers! 
Amanda:
Do you believe that (some/most/all) people who claim to be pro-life are really out to eliminate contraceptives (thereby punishing people, primarily women, who enjoy sex)? Just wondering.
I’m not Amanda, but yes yes and yes. There may be a few out there who actually think they are saving babies, the vast majority are offended that women are having sex and enjoying it and not popping out new kids every 9-10 months.
Do you believe that (some/most/all) people who claim to be pro-life are really out to eliminate contraceptives (thereby punishing people, primarily women, who enjoy sex)?
I can’t speak for Amanda, but I personally think that most of the people in the leadership—the ones trying to get these regulations passed and the ones infiltrating pharmacy schools are anti-sex, not pro-baby. You do get some naive fools who don’t realize what they’re really supporting when they get all worried about the babies, but, yes, the aim of the professional pro-life movement is to get Griswold overturned and contraception banned again.
They’re not going to succeed, but they’re going to fuck up a lot of shit trying.
NOT prescribing antibiotics for STDs could cause “abortions” as defined by the Right Wing Anti-Science people. Chronic infection with some STDs makes the uterine lining inhospitable to implantation - treat the infection, voila, uterus works again.
They’re bound and determined to make ours a post-science post-reality society,
A necessary clarification, I think.
I’ve been too depressed about this to even begin to write about it.
NOT prescribing antibiotics for STDs could cause “abortions” as defined by the Right Wing Anti-Science people. Chronic infection with some STDs makes the uterine lining inhospitable to implantation - treat the infection, voila, uterus works again.
And not using contraception and thus increasing the chances of pregnancy do, statistically, cause more abortions han the contraception per se. But this won’t stop the wingers in their race against reality.
How long before they go after urologists who give vasectomies? And will they require men who’ve had them to get them reversed?
Oh wait, I forgot. Men get to fuck around all they want in this regime. It’s the women who have to be kept in chastity belts except when they’re being bred.
I’m not Amanda, but yes yes and yes. There may be a few out there who actually think they are saving babies, the vast majority are offended that women are having sex and enjoying it and not popping out new kids every 9-10 months.
Sumemr on 07/21 at 11:30 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Why else would they condone abortion in the case of rape or incest?
A fetus conceived by force is no different than any other fetus, but is totally expendable.
But when a woman conceives during a slutty romp she DESERVES to be punished with an unwanted pregnancy/child.
It has nothing to do with saving babies, or they’d value those rape and incest tykes as much as those whore’s babies.
The entire process is considered magical. A soul may be created whenever you fuck, and is sacred and deserving of preservation even at the risk of its mother’s life, and any measure taken to prevent the creation of fresh souls is an open affront to God.
The son of God died upon the cross, was placed in a tomb, and rose on the third day, HUNGRY FOR BRAINS. He’s still hungry for your children.
To answer the above question for myself, I’d say kinda. But trust me, this is not defending these people.
I believe that the whole abortion issue is nothing but a moral panacea. It’s an easy, sacrifice-free way for guilty people to feel good about themselves, no, not just that, but to feel BETTER than everybody else from a moral point of view. The whole contraception thing is an escalation...it’s going to a higher dose.
The difficulty in convincing people of this is that the CW is that the fight against abortion is a “moral issue”, and because these people are moral..why would they lie? It’s not and they’re not. With morality comes empathy, and generally speaking, anti-abortion goes hand in hand with conservative politics, and we all know if there’s one thing that conservative politics lacks its empathy.
Beast - you do get people who insist that the woman bears the child even in the case of rape or incest. The argument goes along the lines of “It’s not the BABY’s fault it was conceived!” But then of course you can chew them out about how, yeah, continuing to take advantage of a rape victim’s body for another nine months is definitely a good option according to them.
The anti-choice position is just not tenable.
Why else would they condone abortion in the case of rape or incest?
Political acceptability, and/or they think that the increased trauma of bearing a child in that case is enough to justify, ah, “murder”.
Karmakin: excellent points!
Men get to fuck around all they want in this regime. It’s the women who have to be kept in chastity belts except when they’re being bred.
Which always makes me wonder who exactly the men think they’re going to fuck around with if all of the women aren’t allowed to fuck around with anyone.
Oh, that’s right. The whores. You’re either a virgin or a whore if you’re a woman. NO EXCEPTIONS.
Oh, that’s right. The whores. You’re either a virgin or a whore if you’re a woman. NO EXCEPTIONS.
Yep. And if you should be raped, you’re a whore and no decent man will ever marry you. It’s not quite the same threat it was back in the days when the only profession open to women was prostitution, but they’d still love to bring it back.
Marching back to Victorian morality ....
Joining the chorus of “I’m not Amanda,” my answer is absolutely. The anti-abortion leadership is profoundly anti-sex and misogynist, and many (if not most) see overturning Roe v. Wade as a first step to overturning Griswold v. Connecticut. Remember Judge Bork? His insistence that Griswold was lousy law was a big, big reason why he wasn’t confirmed to the Supreme Court. And he’s about as misogynist, anti-feminist, and anti-abortion as they come.
Do you believe that (some/most/all) people who claim to be pro-life are really out to eliminate contraceptives (thereby punishing people, primarily women, who enjoy sex)?
No. I think most people who call themselves “pro-life” are stupid, and follow behind sentimental rhetoric without thinking about it, or questioning what will happen if their leadership gets its way and bans contraception. So, the organized movement is evil, and the followers are stupid.
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
Yay Hillary! ^^ I read that article and thought it was pretty great.