The"I'm Mad As Hell and I'm Not Going To Take It Anymore" Entry
Yesterday the governor of South Dakota signed into law a ban on all abortions that do not directly threaten the woman’s life who is carrying that baby’s. Rape victims, incest victims, unless you’re going to die if you have this baby, you’re having this baby. No one should be surprised that state legislatures around the US are seizing the incredible opportunity that our Born Again Christian President has presented. Thank you America.
I can’t quite determine what is angering me more; the fact that this bill turned law was intentional and timed; that it is willing to bargain with women’s lives as it runs its course through appeal until it hits the Supreme Court. Or maybe that it feels like this law is reinforcing the age old argument that women’s lib fought against – and is still fighting against - that women are mere byproducts of this Christian God, biologically created to produce children, no matter what the cost or the traumatization.
This trauma that all women residents of South Dakota face needs to be spoken of, and I’ll just start with the most obvious.
Victims of incest traditionally are under the age of 18, vulnerable and incredibly unable to stand up for themselves or break away – emotionally or physically – from their dysfunctional home life. How the South Dakota legislature can rationalize how this woman/girl is capable of birthing and presumably caring for a child out of incest is confusing and terrifying at the same time (because lets be honest here, this is a baby out of incest, which doesn’t really grab adoptive parents, or so I would think).
Rape victims don’t necessarily have the general age disadvantage that incest victims do. On the contrary, these are women who most of the time have no emotional confusion regarding the men who impregnate them, whereas victims of incest clearly do. Rape, as a rule, is when one party completely unwillingly is forced to have sex with the other, and women are the lucky bunch who run the risk of not only having the emotional and mental scarring, but may end up pregnant as well. Nine months is a long time to carry a physical reminder of a rape, and the most horrifying part is that – at least in South Dakota – because they presume this “child” to be given all of the living (and I’m going to define living when it isn’t doing that inside a woman’s body) rights, that means rights to a biological father. Thus, the raped “mother” of this child now is forced to interact with the rapist “father,” and according to the state of South Dakota, they theoretically now get to raise this child, a child born out of violence and hate.
I don’t truly understand how the State of South Dakota rations that this child is better off having been born but it seems consistent with the Conservative logic that has fired this pro-life movement all along – they passionately rally for this child’s unborn life but they remain steadily hell bent on funneling tax dollars away from aid programs that care for all lives – Medicaid and welfare and healthcare in America are becoming less and less important to the Christian Conservatives. Perhaps we should be evaluating how valuable a life is by how we’re caring for American lives, all of them – old and young, instead of obsessing over abortion.
To be frank, I in fact don’t understand why this “life” is considered anything but a mess of tissue until it is pushed or yanked out of the woman. I don’t understand why this “life” as they consider it is more important than the life of the mother – why nine months out of her life, why one moment of violence unto herself, is not equal in rights to this hypothetical baby. No one will argue that babies need love and I don’t understand why the State of South Dakota thinks that the minute this raped or victimized woman gives birth that she will suddenly turn into the storybook Mama Bear – that suddenly it will all be “okay” and that incident, nine months ago, was “worth it.” How do they assume that a man as incredibly dangerous and un paternal, as rapists and perpetrators of incest are – can suddenly be strong enough to father a child? What exactly are they saying? Because it doesn’t seem like they have thought enough about it, especially when the governor refuses interviews moments after signing this bill into law, because the obvious questions articulated here would need to be answered. And what would he say? To the incest victims. To the rape victims. And eventually to the child of a rapist, or a child whose father is also their grandfather or uncle…but that doesn’t matter right now, and neither do the basic rights of women in the State of South Dakota. Women who just decide to have sex – to be as sexually active as men have eternally been – women are once again being punished by society for being sexually free and controlling themselves without the permission of a man or a family. No scarlet A, yes, but the bulging belly of an unmarried woman, especially one that does not wish to be a mother, is telling enough. What type of punitive action happens to a man once a woman becomes pregnant? Nothing, in fact, the laws we have to force the father to be as participatory as the woman, in the form of monetary support, is amazingly easy to outrun. Women cannot outrun a participatory role in parenting and now, and now not having any choice whatsoever, it will be no surprise when women are in the back alley’s with coat hangers, with doctors performing under the table abortions, exploiting and victimizing women, again.
The Supreme Court should be smart about this issue and they should, as it was said before during John Roberts’ confirmation hearings, leave it as “settled law.” If not, I may join the ranks of those American hating Europeans and just move to London, if I like it. If not, there is always Canada. Or Mexico.
Yesterday the governor of South Dakota signed into law a ban on all abortions that do not directly threaten the woman’s life who is carrying that baby’s. Rape victims, incest victims, unless you’re going to die if you have this baby, you’re having this baby. No one should be surprised that state legislatures around the US are seizing the incredible opportunity that our Born Again Christian President has presented. Thank you America.
I can’t quite determine what is angering me more; the fact that this bill turned law was intentional and timed; that it is willing to bargain with women’s lives as it runs its course through appeal until it hits the Supreme Court. Or maybe that it feels like this law is reinforcing the age old argument that women’s lib fought against – and is still fighting against - that women are mere byproducts of this Christian God, biologically created to produce children, no matter what the cost or the traumatization.
This trauma that all women residents of South Dakota face needs to be spoken of, and I’ll just start with the most obvious.
Victims of incest traditionally are under the age of 18, vulnerable and incredibly unable to stand up for themselves or break away – emotionally or physically – from their dysfunctional home life. How the South Dakota legislature can rationalize how this woman/girl is capable of birthing and presumably caring for a child out of incest is confusing and terrifying at the same time (because lets be honest here, this is a baby out of incest, which doesn’t really grab adoptive parents, or so I would think).
Rape victims don’t necessarily have the general age disadvantage that incest victims do. On the contrary, these are women who most of the time have no emotional confusion regarding the men who impregnate them, whereas victims of incest clearly do. Rape, as a rule, is when one party completely unwillingly is forced to have sex with the other, and women are the lucky bunch who run the risk of not only having the emotional and mental scarring, but may end up pregnant as well. Nine months is a long time to carry a physical reminder of a rape, and the most horrifying part is that – at least in South Dakota – because they presume this “child” to be given all of the living (and I’m going to define living when it isn’t doing that inside a woman’s body) rights, that means rights to a biological father. Thus, the raped “mother” of this child now is forced to interact with the rapist “father,” and according to the state of South Dakota, they theoretically now get to raise this child, a child born out of violence and hate.
I don’t truly understand how the State of South Dakota rations that this child is better off having been born but it seems consistent with the Conservative logic that has fired this pro-life movement all along – they passionately rally for this child’s unborn life but they remain steadily hell bent on funneling tax dollars away from aid programs that care for all lives – Medicaid and welfare and healthcare in America are becoming less and less important to the Christian Conservatives. Perhaps we should be evaluating how valuable a life is by how we’re caring for American lives, all of them – old and young, instead of obsessing over abortion.
To be frank, I in fact don’t understand why this “life” is considered anything but a mess of tissue until it is pushed or yanked out of the woman. I don’t understand why this “life” as they consider it is more important than the life of the mother – why nine months out of her life, why one moment of violence unto herself, is not equal in rights to this hypothetical baby. No one will argue that babies need love and I don’t understand why the State of South Dakota thinks that the minute this raped or victimized woman gives birth that she will suddenly turn into the storybook Mama Bear – that suddenly it will all be “okay” and that incident, nine months ago, was “worth it.” How do they assume that a man as incredibly dangerous and un paternal, as rapists and perpetrators of incest are – can suddenly be strong enough to father a child? What exactly are they saying? Because it doesn’t seem like they have thought enough about it, especially when the governor refuses interviews moments after signing this bill into law, because the obvious questions articulated here would need to be answered. And what would he say? To the incest victims. To the rape victims. And eventually to the child of a rapist, or a child whose father is also their grandfather or uncle…but that doesn’t matter right now, and neither do the basic rights of women in the State of South Dakota. Women who just decide to have sex – to be as sexually active as men have eternally been – women are once again being punished by society for being sexually free and controlling themselves without the permission of a man or a family. No scarlet A, yes, but the bulging belly of an unmarried woman, especially one that does not wish to be a mother, is telling enough. What type of punitive action happens to a man once a woman becomes pregnant? Nothing, in fact, the laws we have to force the father to be as participatory as the woman, in the form of monetary support, is amazingly easy to outrun. Women cannot outrun a participatory role in parenting and now, and now not having any choice whatsoever, it will be no surprise when women are in the back alley’s with coat hangers, with doctors performing under the table abortions, exploiting and victimizing women, again.
The Supreme Court should be smart about this issue and they should, as it was said before during John Roberts’ confirmation hearings, leave it as “settled law.” If not, I may join the ranks of those American hating Europeans and just move to London, if I like it. If not, there is always Canada. Or Mexico.
ok i'm reading this tomorrow when my eyes are fully open and i'm alert and ready to get angry with you.
Posted by
catbabies |
Tue Mar 07, 10:40:00 PM CST