Carhart and Abortion
In the just handed down U.S. Supreme Court case of Carhart, the court upheld the ban on the so-called "partial-birth abortions" (see my earlier posts for refutation of that very label). This is a not-so-subtle battle in the outright war on the right of abortion. Do not be fooled that this only about one procedure. It's just one more step for these people to eradicate this right altogether.
Sadly, this is one more result that falls directly at the feet of each pro-Bush voter in 2004. I tried to warn people that the presidential nominees were irrelevant to the long-term civil rights of this country, but the ability to name Supreme Court justices would last for decades. Bush's two right-wing appointees, Roberts and Alito, both voted with the 5-4 majority (and based on her voting record, the departed O'Connor likely would have sided with the minority). A majority, who according to Justice Ginsburg's dissenting opinion, offered "flimsy and transparent justifications" for upholding the ban. This is not the first 5-4 decision that these Roberts and Alito have swung.
While I understand the viewpoint of religious conservatives, who believe abortion is murder, and thus must be stopped at all costs, they need to understand the viewpoint of persons with different religious beliefs. What is obvious to them is just spin to me. "Partial-birth abortion" was and is called "DX." What some see as a "baby" others see as a "fetus," and yet others see as a mere collection of cells: what the Roe court called a "potential life." Those that have the ability to think for themselves have the right NOT to see this as murder, but as the control of possibilities.
That is, there is the problem that abortion isn't just abortion, it's about fitting women into historical gender roles. That they should be mothers, life-givers, servants. Right. That thinking should be dead. Women have proved more than capable to do anything men can. As such, they should be given the right to choose how to use that possibility by controlling what happens to their bodies. It's impossible not to see abortion as a piece of that male-dominated cultural hegemony.
Moreover, this attitude is emblematic of male attempts not only to control women, but to control women's sexuality. There is the concept that women themselves are at fault for having sex. Right. I've yet to see any serious attack on men at that level. Several years back, there was a big outrage against "teen premarital sex." A major magazine inquired to many of these conservative figures (Republican and Democrat) to comment on "adult premarital sex." None would. So if you don't want to ban all sex, what are you doing? Trying to use it as a method of control, as an apparatus of power.
Sex is what it is. Use it as you will. Don't let anyone judge you for it. And don't let it dictate your possibility. Man or woman. And be wary of any sideways attack on the right to have an abortion, no matter how inconsequential or tangental to that right it may seem.
Sadly, this is one more result that falls directly at the feet of each pro-Bush voter in 2004. I tried to warn people that the presidential nominees were irrelevant to the long-term civil rights of this country, but the ability to name Supreme Court justices would last for decades. Bush's two right-wing appointees, Roberts and Alito, both voted with the 5-4 majority (and based on her voting record, the departed O'Connor likely would have sided with the minority). A majority, who according to Justice Ginsburg's dissenting opinion, offered "flimsy and transparent justifications" for upholding the ban. This is not the first 5-4 decision that these Roberts and Alito have swung.
While I understand the viewpoint of religious conservatives, who believe abortion is murder, and thus must be stopped at all costs, they need to understand the viewpoint of persons with different religious beliefs. What is obvious to them is just spin to me. "Partial-birth abortion" was and is called "DX." What some see as a "baby" others see as a "fetus," and yet others see as a mere collection of cells: what the Roe court called a "potential life." Those that have the ability to think for themselves have the right NOT to see this as murder, but as the control of possibilities.
That is, there is the problem that abortion isn't just abortion, it's about fitting women into historical gender roles. That they should be mothers, life-givers, servants. Right. That thinking should be dead. Women have proved more than capable to do anything men can. As such, they should be given the right to choose how to use that possibility by controlling what happens to their bodies. It's impossible not to see abortion as a piece of that male-dominated cultural hegemony.
Moreover, this attitude is emblematic of male attempts not only to control women, but to control women's sexuality. There is the concept that women themselves are at fault for having sex. Right. I've yet to see any serious attack on men at that level. Several years back, there was a big outrage against "teen premarital sex." A major magazine inquired to many of these conservative figures (Republican and Democrat) to comment on "adult premarital sex." None would. So if you don't want to ban all sex, what are you doing? Trying to use it as a method of control, as an apparatus of power.
Sex is what it is. Use it as you will. Don't let anyone judge you for it. And don't let it dictate your possibility. Man or woman. And be wary of any sideways attack on the right to have an abortion, no matter how inconsequential or tangental to that right it may seem.
Labels: abortion, gender, politics, sex
|| posted by mW @ 12:13 PM
[top]
All Rights Reserved © 2005-2010