Like many of you, I am livid at the leaked decision that overturns Roe v. Wade. And like many of you, I’ve had all sorts of thoughts about access to abortion. The story, the consequences, the lives of women, why are there no consequences for men? The politicians who have so cowardly used women’s health care as a springboard to power.
There are a few issues I would like to focus on. First, why do only women bear the consequences of an abortion? She didn’t get pregnant on her own. In fact, the man should have more responsibilities than the woman in this situation. If a pregnancy is terminated and the termination is illegal, then if the woman is to be prosecuted, so must the man.
A man can easily end the pregnancy by using a condom, or more permanently with a vasectomy. Having unprotected sex is not a right that I have heard of anywhere. A Mormon mother of 6 explained this in a very insightful Twitter thread. Here are some excerpts from that thread:
“If you want to stop abortion, you have to prevent unwanted pregnancies. And men are 100% responsible for unwanted pregnancies. No for real, they are. You may be thinking: IT NEEDS TWO! And yes, it takes two for _intentional_ pregnancies.
But ALL unwanted pregnancies are caused by irresponsible male ejaculations. Period. You do not believe me ? Let me guide you. Let’s start with this: Women’s eggs are only fertile about 2 days a month. And that’s for a limited number of years.
She goes on to explain the simple biology of insemination and the problems with birth control pills which have brutal side effects for women. Birth control pills aren’t simple, aren’t easy, and in many states aren’t covered by insurance and aren’t readily available at women’s health clinics that are downsized in many states.
After a discussion about using a condom, she makes this statement:
“So…there are men willing to risk getting a woman pregnant – which literally means risking their life, health, social status, relationships and career, so they can live a few minutes of slightly more pleasure ? Is it for real? Yes. Yes it is.”
At this point, it’s obvious that men are the ones who really control insemination. Yet sex and pregnancy are rarely linked in men. The author suggests consequences for men who might finally get their attention:
“Put a castration law on the books, enforce the law, let the media tell the story, and in 3 months or less, tada!” abortions will have practically disappeared. Can you imagine it? More abortions in less than 3 months, without ever trying to ban them. Surprising.
For those of you who consider abortion murder, wouldn’t you be okay with having a handful of men castrated, if that would prevent 500,000 murders every year?
This Twitter thread is about ten minutes long and well worth the time to read. It’s a woman’s perspective that has a real solution that puts responsibility where it belongs.
Second, if the right to privacy — which Justice Alito said is the basis of his opinion — means anything to you, you can’t vote for Chuck Grassley. It was his subversion of the constitutional processes for approving SCOTUS judges while Obama was president that led to this horrible regressive majority.
And then it was his subversion of that previous maneuver that led to the confirmation of the super-regressive, poorly-qualified Amy Coney Barrett at the SCOTUS. Unsurprisingly, these are the only two accomplishments Grassley can remember in FORTY-TWO YEARS in office.
Third, I want to remind people that women’s reproductive rights as an issue, including abortion and abortion access, were never really an issue for almost a decade after Roe until segregationists see evangelicals as one big electoral bloc that they could exploit and that could transform elections. . Segregationists used abortion and promoted it to get voters to take power and attack their segregationist agenda.
According to a political analysis eight years ago:
Weyrich saw that he had the beginnings of a conservative political movement, which is why, several years into President Jimmy Carter’s term, he and other leaders of the nascent religious right blamed the Democratic president for the IRS’ actions against schools. segregated – even though the policy was mandated by Nixon and Bob Jones University had lost his tax exemption a year and a day before Carter was named president. Falwell, Weyrich and others were not deterred by the intricacies of the facts. In their determination to elect a conservative, they would do anything to deny a Democrat, even a fellow evangelical like Carter, another term in the White House.
But Falwell and Weyrich, having tapped into the anger of evangelical leaders, were also savvy enough to recognize that organizing grassroots evangelicals to defend racial discrimination would be a challenge. It had worked to rally the leaders, but they needed another issue if they were to mobilize evangelical voters on a large scale.
By the late 1970s, many Americans — and not just Roman Catholics — were beginning to feel uneasy about the surge in legal abortions after the 1973 crisis. deer decision. The 1978 Senate races demonstrated to Weyrich and others that abortion could motivate conservatives where it had not in the past. That year in Minnesota, pro-life Republicans captured both Senate seats (one for Hubert Humphrey’s unexpired term) as well as the governor’s mansion. In Iowa, Senator Dick Clark, the incumbent Democrat, was considered a shoo-in: every poll before the election showed him ahead by at least 10 percentage points. On the campaign’s final weekend, however, pro-life activists, mostly Roman Catholics, handed out leaflets in church parking lots (as they did in Minnesota) and, on Election Day , Clark lost to his Republican pro-life opponent. (Editor’s note: Roger Jepsen)
Finally, after overthrowing this so-called “established law,” what else will be on their list to “fix?” The ages of the six extremely regressive judges range from three in their early 70s to three in their 50s with Barrett just under 51. This means that they will sing together for perhaps another ten to fifteen years, as they are currently composed.
So what else will they go after? Most experts say same-sex marriage was also decided on “privacy.” Others choose Griswold c. Connecticut, the decision that authorized the sale of contraceptives to married women. Also a case of confidentiality. But what about the interracial marriage case Loving v. Virginia?
And who says it has to be a case in the area of privacy? Over the next ten years, I expect Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and any form of federal health insurance (Obamacare) to be on the chopping block. Fasten your seat belts, it’s about to get bumpy.