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
Why Some Laws Are Wrong
Personal lives of people should be just that. Personal. The state has no business regulating sex in any way other than to prevent forced encounters and to protect children from adults who know better. The reason why this country will eventually fester and explode, like Rome before it, is because America refuses to evolve. Its people stagnate with an apalling apathy. No one is innocent. Politicians and public alike don't care.
We want to win wars, as long as our lives aren't impacted and all our sons and daughters return. We want everyone to be "normal," and we vigorously fight to keep America this way, pretending no one gets hurt in the process. And we never stop to question why people are in jail, instead content to put them away for years at a time, simply because then we don't have to deal with that person, all the while ignoring that the same causes that put that person in that situation will put another person in that same situation, leading to the same result.
And so it is, because our courts refuse to strike down laws that are not actively enforced, that we still have laws governing who can do what with their personal lives. What, in particular, has raised my ire, is the fact that the state of Georgia feels justified in mercilessly prosecuting a promising young man, aged 17, for having oral sex with a 15-year-old, in a situation where everyone agrees she was the instigator. Read the full story here.
This young man, who was a 3.2 gpa student, an athletic success, and homecoming king, was put away for 10 years without a possibility of parole. We say today that girl was too young to consent. Bullshit. Girls were married before then in those "good ole days" that laws like these are meant to preserve. It's an illusion of morality wrapped in righteousness that is grating on this country.
But that' s right. We have a war going on. We have gays getting married y'all. And, gasp, illegal immigrants. As if we don't have enough people to get concerned about anything else. It's all smoke and mirrors and people make deals out of a lot of things, because at the end of the day people just want to feel okay about themselves and they don't care at what expense it costs others. It's depressing.
We want to win wars, as long as our lives aren't impacted and all our sons and daughters return. We want everyone to be "normal," and we vigorously fight to keep America this way, pretending no one gets hurt in the process. And we never stop to question why people are in jail, instead content to put them away for years at a time, simply because then we don't have to deal with that person, all the while ignoring that the same causes that put that person in that situation will put another person in that same situation, leading to the same result.
And so it is, because our courts refuse to strike down laws that are not actively enforced, that we still have laws governing who can do what with their personal lives. What, in particular, has raised my ire, is the fact that the state of Georgia feels justified in mercilessly prosecuting a promising young man, aged 17, for having oral sex with a 15-year-old, in a situation where everyone agrees she was the instigator. Read the full story here.
This young man, who was a 3.2 gpa student, an athletic success, and homecoming king, was put away for 10 years without a possibility of parole. We say today that girl was too young to consent. Bullshit. Girls were married before then in those "good ole days" that laws like these are meant to preserve. It's an illusion of morality wrapped in righteousness that is grating on this country.
But that' s right. We have a war going on. We have gays getting married y'all. And, gasp, illegal immigrants. As if we don't have enough people to get concerned about anything else. It's all smoke and mirrors and people make deals out of a lot of things, because at the end of the day people just want to feel okay about themselves and they don't care at what expense it costs others. It's depressing.
Labels: laws, morals, prison, sex
|| posted by mW @ 10:34 AM[top]
All Rights Reserved © 2005-2010