There is nothing more hypocritical than a politician speaking out of both sides of their mouth.
I wrote about the Texas abortion ban earlier this week. I am not the only one who is outraged by this law. Yesterday, actress and model Brooklyn Decker shared her thoughts via social media. When a state tightly controls women’s bodies, but is lax on gun control, their actions speak louder than any amount of words can. If this is what it means to be “pro-life“, I have to ask what they mean by stating this and whose lives are worthy of protection?
For a millennia, men have controlled everything about women, our bodies included. It is only in the past century or so that we have fought to take back the control of our bodies that was ours in the first place.
Yesterday, SCOTUS ruled in favor of blocking an anti-abortion law in Louisiana. In a nutshell, the law said that doctors were prohibited from performing the procedure unless they had admitting privileges at a local hospital.
On the surface, the law does not sound all that bad. It sounds almost preventative, waiting for the day when something goes wrong and an ambulance would have to be called. But, looking at the fine print tells another story. It closes all but one of the remaining abortion clinics on a technicality, putting the lives of the female residents of Louisiana at risk.
What is interesting is that Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the liberal members of the court. In doing so, it is my perspective that he is looking to the future of this country. It is a future that true equality exists between the sexes and women are finally seen as fully-fledged human beings.
It is only a small step. But when small steps come together, they can lead to major change.
Logic states that when a major decision needs to be made, one completes research and gathers all of the facts before making said decision. Unfortunately, politics and logic don’t always go hand in hand.
In the wake of the Alabama abortion bill and the various fetal heartbeat bill that have passed in other states, I hope that the lawmakers consulted with anyone in the medical community or at least have someone on their staff check on the Internet before signing the bills into law. But hope often springs eternal.
The scary part of these bills is that these lawmakers are putting the lives of America’s women and girls in danger without blinking an eye. If they really cared about us, they would in the very least, speak to a medical professional or ask one of their staff to make sure that they have the right information. But they didn’t and because of that, who knows how many lives could be at stake?
Thank you, Samantha Bee for speaking the truth. If only we could all do the same.
Anyone who knows me (or at least has read this blog regularly), knows that my political views are pretty liberal. It’s therefore not hard to imagine that politically, Pat Robertson and I standard very far apart when it comes to politics and other sensitive subjects.
I was surprised to read that he is against the new Alabama abortion bill, stating that lawmakers have gone too far. If Pat Robertson is against this law, that says something.
The thing that strikes me about abortion laws is that they are used by men to control women’s bodies, but men’s bodies are never controlled by women or other men. This idea of a man controlling a woman’s body goes back to the not too distant past when a woman was chattel to her father, husband or other nearest male relative. There are some men (and some women) who still believe that a man has the right to control a woman’s bodies.
The only out that a doctor may have for not potentially going to jail for 99 years is if the abortion is determined to be medically necessary. There is no out for a woman who is raped or whose pregnancy is caused by incest.
The irony of this law is that it was signed by Alabama’s female governor, Kay Ivey (R-Alabama). According to the news report, the lawmakers who supported and signed the bill hope to us it as an avenue to eventually challenge Roe V. Wade in the Supreme Court.
While I respect that those who are pro-life have the right to the opinion, I think that if one is pro-life, why not focus on the children who are already living? There are so many children who are growing up in less then ideal conditions, why not focus your time and energy on those children?
I wish that in 2019, the issue of abortion and the government intervening on woman’s choice on whether or not have an abortion did not exist. But it still does and until the issue does not exist, I an and many others will continue to fight.
P.S. It takes two to tango and two to conceive a child. If these male lawmakers are so concerned about abortion, perhaps they should be making sure that the snakes are kept in the cages or condoms should be made readily available to prevent an unwanted pregnancy and a possible future abortion.
We all recognize that life is precious, especially the lives of our children. The problem is that we do not recognize or remember that our children grow within their mother’s bodies and it is the mother who is as important in the process as the fetus that is growing inside of her.
Yesterday, Governor Brian Kemp (R-Georgia), signed the Fetal Heartbeat Bill. In layman’s terms, abortion is allowed until a heartbeat of a fetus is detected. The problem is that that a heartbeat is detected within five to six weeks of pregnancy, when many women may not be aware that they are pregnant.
Without directly saying so, Governor Kemp has signed a law that bans all abortions.
I don’t know if the Governor or his team consulted with any doctors, but my heart of hearts tells me with that this is wrong. A woman’s right to choose is an unalienable right. The problem is that many still believe that a woman does not have the right to choose how to live her life (which extends to if and/or when she has a child).
While I understand the point of view of those who are pro-life, I disagree with them. If a woman has an abortion, for whatever reason she has it, that decision is between herself, her doctor, her G-d (if she belongs to a particular faith) and the father (if there is a father). Outside of that small circle, no one has the right to tell a woman what to do with her life or her future.
It’s taken multiple generations and the hard work of countless women (and their male allies), but we have accomplished what our fore-mothers could only have dreamed of.
Granted, it goes without saying that the fight for equality is not over. Issues such as equal pay, sexual assault, and the right to make decisions over our own bodies are as much as in the forefront as they were decades ago.
My generation of feminists took the ball that our mothers and grandmothers started rolling and have run with it. We stand on their shoulders so that future generations will be able to finish this fight for good.
With the announcement of the retirement of Justice Kennedy two weeks ago, one of the questions with his upcoming retirement was if Roe V. Wade would remain as is or be dissolved.
In a recent episode of Michelle Wolf’s Netflix series, The Break With Michelle Wolf, not only does she lay out the hypocrisy of the pro-life moment, but she also points out that the pro-life movement is anti-women.
Is abortion a choice? Not always. Sometimes aborting a pregnancy is the only way to save the mother’s life or prevent a child from not living a full life because of one or more potential disabilities.
The fact is that for many generations, women did not have choices like men did. We were supposed to marry, bear children and keep a home. That was it.
From my perspective, the feminist movement comes down to one word: choice. Whether it reproductive choices, career choices or any other choices that women make to take control of their own destinies, there are still far too many people (both men and women) who would prefer that women stay in our little boxes and not ask question about why we cannot make our own decisions about how to live.
Tony Tinderholt is a Republican member House Of Representatives from Texas.
He also wants to not only throw women in jail who have had abortions, but he wants to take away their voting rights.
This man makes my skin crawl. Not only does he want to set us back to pre Roe V. Wade days, he also wants to take us back to the 19th century.
What he forgets (and so does everyone else who is anti-abortion), is that sex, whether for pleasure or for procreation requires two people. If a couple has sex without protection, finds themselves pregnant and the woman chooses to have an abortion, why must only the woman suffer? It was the man’s sperm that met the woman’s egg, therefore he must suffer the consequences as well. While Mr. Tinderholt also proposes in the law to punish men whose partners/spouses have had abortions, he still needs to get his head out of the clouds.
Would he deny an abortion to a sixteen year old who stupidly had sex without protection and whose life will be forever changed if she chooses to become a mother? Would he really add another case to child services workload by forcing a mother who is already financially strapped and relies on government assistance to get by? Would he be so cold to force a rape or incest victim to carry her attacker’s child and raise it as if it as if the child came out a healthy, loving relationship?
This mas has no heart and needs to come back to Earth.