Congratulations to misogynist rapists on their latest victory.
On a practical note, though, is this kind of wildly overreaching legislative terrorism likely to be an effective strategy? I mean, to get Roe v Wade overturned, you’d need a test case where a state explicitly stopped someone getting an abortion, so the current rapist-heavy court could specifically reverse the earlier decision about that. But if the test case involves someone who terminated an ectopic pregnancy or something outrageous like that, then the court would have to go much, much further, or else the status quo would remain unchanged… right?
I’ve heard something like this but without the term snowflake. An extremely conservative friend who tried to convince me about “evils of in vitro”, sad that “those children that are not allowed to be born nor die”. Honestly, it was a bit weird.
I disagree. The pro-life people are all over that particular situation: the vast majority will say that every viable frozen embryo is a person. And why shouldn’t they? It costs them nothing to adhere to this particular bit of ideological purity. And it reinforces their fetish that fertilized embryos, everywhere, both in human bodies and in freezers, must be protected and given the chance to continue their personhood.
I distantly recall a PR event where a congressman got a bunch of these “snowflake adults” together and the argument he was making was something along the lines of: “Look at all these grown adults. The abortion folks, they wanted to murder these fine people.” Then, they interview the adults with questions like “How do you feel to be alive? Don’t you feel angry at the people who wanted to kill you?” Logic has left the building.
The bill’s sponsor said -
" State Rep. Terri Collins (R), who sponsored the new legislation, has been outspoken about her intent to change that.
“This bill is very simple,” she told The Washington Post. “It’s not about birth control or the morning after the pill. It’s about not allowing abortion once the woman is pregnant. The entire bill was designed to overturn [Roe v. Wade] and allow states to decide what is best for them.”
Also -
"Eric Johnston, who drafted the legislation as president of the Alabama Pro-Life Coalition, said he was confident the governor would sign the bill. It is his hope that the law will be challenged, he said, and will eventually be reviewed by the Supreme Court.
He applauded the legislature for not adding any exceptions to the bill.
“It is a traumatic event, and I don’t want to diminish how serious it is,” he said, referring to rape and incest. “But if we are arguing personhood then it does not matter how a child is conceived.”
RvW isn’t a constitutional protection. It’s precedent. Lawmakers are free to craft any law they choose. This is as it should be.
The point of this law is to be appealed to SCOTUS which is now stacked with two Trump appointees (because the Republicans illegally prevented an Obama appointment). Republicans feel they have a chance to overturn the precedent of RvW.
The interesting angle on the Alabama law is that the woman isn’t charged. The doctor is. That’s a whole other kettle of fish.
“This bill is very simple,” she told The Washington Post. “It’s not about birth control or the morning after the pill. It’s about not allowing abortion once the woman is pregnant. The entire bill was designed to overturn [Roe v. Wade] and allow states to decide what is best for them.”
I am actually surprised they seem to know Plan B, aka, the morning after pill is not abortion.
However, according to their own twisted logic Plan B or traditional birth control could be murder, as I believe they both also reduce the chance of a fertilized egg implanting, which according to them is the same as killing an adult human.
This whole thing makes me sick.
By the way, can I be charged with murder if I refuse to donate a kidney?
Because that is a very separate question and gets to the heart of the matter I think.
If you accept their false claims, they are still forcing human being 1 to keep human being 2 alive, by literally sharing every organ they have with person 1.
If refusing to do that is murder, then we are all murderers.
Most science fiction writers, dystopian or not, are writing metaphors for one big idea they have. Atwood constructed a real, believable world based entirely on things that had been done to women in the past. The best part of handmaid’s tale is the revelation that the powerful people who inflict a strict sexual moral code on society run secret brothels for themselves. Because they always do.
To be honest, I could even see a court similarly constituted to the Roe v. Wade court allowing this kind of legislation.
It expressly balances the potential life of the child against the harm to the mother and regulates how and where abortions can take place under appropriate medical assistance.
Abortion is a safe, legal medical procedure that saves lives and reduces harm.
Embroys and fetuses are not human beings, they are masses of tissue and differentiating cells and are part of the process of humans being born, much like any tissue in your body contributes to that process.
It is all part of your body, which you get to choose what you want for your body and you can care for it any god damn way you please, no permission or guilt needed.
Yeah but you see this plays into theyr hands as well. The republicons are paid by the private prison industry and this legislatiin will make sure that the prisons stay full.
I want to see a test case where a woman forced to carry a child to term sues each of the sponsors of this bill for child support. If they’re responsible for making her bring this child into the world, shouldn’t they be individually responsible financially for the care of that child? [I know the case would get nowhere, but the publicity would be entertaining at least.]
I also hope that the jury selection for the first doctor charged with violating this law sees the defense reject anyone who does not have some sort of medical experience if not an actual MD degree. If the defendant has the right to be tried by a jury of their peers, they could claim those peers must have an understanding of the medical issues involved.
