I've seen the future. It's not pretty.
South Dakota wants to add murder of abortion providers to the definition of people you can kill and still have it be deemed "justifiable" homicide.
Remember that "First they came" poem? Does anything sum up, so brilliantly, why accommodation in the fight for a woman's right to choose is ultimately pointless? There will never be a concession that is enough for the anti-choicers. Oh, parental notification? That seems fair. Teenagers get the craziest ideas--you know, one minute it's a facial piercing, the next an abortion. 24 hour mandatory waiting period between consultation and procedure? I can't see how that would hurt middle-class white women, who are the only people getting abortions, right?
The anti-choice crusade is the textbook example of a slippery slope. Agree to one of the oh-so-reasonable demands (for they are never phrased as requests), and you basically lose the fight. And now you're where we are, with Republicans wanting to redefine rape (only if you were beaten in the process) and then to redefine incest (it can't be a problem if you're over 18!) as they whittle down to the barest of minimums what they think should be acceptable circumstances for getting an abortion: rape, incest, and the life of the mother. (That "life of the mother" clause is, not surprisingly, also under attack.)
First, they want your unfettered right to abortion. Then they want even that barest of minimum freedoms you might "enjoy" to have an abortion if you are 13, the victim of brutal rape by your uncle, and about to die for having been impregnated. They'll want your contraception next. And, when all else fails, because you can no more force people into unrealistic, unnatural celibacy than you can force the mouth-breathing, panty-sniffers pushing this bullshit to stop being so fucking creepy, they'll outright kill the men and women who have any clue how to see you safely through a termination.
Who goes next on that list of justifiable homicides? The Pandagon link has a good point about batterers using this law to kill people who would "kill" their "child" when, in reality, it's just a means to get violent (more violent) on a bitch who won't do what you say ( since you can't kill her and still get the sympathy vote, might as well unload that anger on a doctor, amirite?). So who would be next? Can you kill the women who aborted after the fact? She's a murderer, isn't she? Why fuss about with the uncomfortable questions how many years she should get for murder? The doctor gets a death sentence, if South Dakota has its way. Why shouldn't the woman, too?
I'm so appalled. Just when you thought anti-choicers couldn't sink any lower. I also vow never to let the term "pro-life" pass anyone's lips in front of me without correcting them. Because if this doesn't prove--as the restrictions and bullshit hoops have before it--that anti-choicers haven't got one iota of concern for life, nothing will. And I will bring it up. Constantly. To remind anti-choicers. You stand on the side of these people.
Remember that "First they came" poem? Does anything sum up, so brilliantly, why accommodation in the fight for a woman's right to choose is ultimately pointless? There will never be a concession that is enough for the anti-choicers. Oh, parental notification? That seems fair. Teenagers get the craziest ideas--you know, one minute it's a facial piercing, the next an abortion. 24 hour mandatory waiting period between consultation and procedure? I can't see how that would hurt middle-class white women, who are the only people getting abortions, right?
The anti-choice crusade is the textbook example of a slippery slope. Agree to one of the oh-so-reasonable demands (for they are never phrased as requests), and you basically lose the fight. And now you're where we are, with Republicans wanting to redefine rape (only if you were beaten in the process) and then to redefine incest (it can't be a problem if you're over 18!) as they whittle down to the barest of minimums what they think should be acceptable circumstances for getting an abortion: rape, incest, and the life of the mother. (That "life of the mother" clause is, not surprisingly, also under attack.)
First, they want your unfettered right to abortion. Then they want even that barest of minimum freedoms you might "enjoy" to have an abortion if you are 13, the victim of brutal rape by your uncle, and about to die for having been impregnated. They'll want your contraception next. And, when all else fails, because you can no more force people into unrealistic, unnatural celibacy than you can force the mouth-breathing, panty-sniffers pushing this bullshit to stop being so fucking creepy, they'll outright kill the men and women who have any clue how to see you safely through a termination.
Who goes next on that list of justifiable homicides? The Pandagon link has a good point about batterers using this law to kill people who would "kill" their "child" when, in reality, it's just a means to get violent (more violent) on a bitch who won't do what you say ( since you can't kill her and still get the sympathy vote, might as well unload that anger on a doctor, amirite?). So who would be next? Can you kill the women who aborted after the fact? She's a murderer, isn't she? Why fuss about with the uncomfortable questions how many years she should get for murder? The doctor gets a death sentence, if South Dakota has its way. Why shouldn't the woman, too?
I'm so appalled. Just when you thought anti-choicers couldn't sink any lower. I also vow never to let the term "pro-life" pass anyone's lips in front of me without correcting them. Because if this doesn't prove--as the restrictions and bullshit hoops have before it--that anti-choicers haven't got one iota of concern for life, nothing will. And I will bring it up. Constantly. To remind anti-choicers. You stand on the side of these people.