Woman Jailed on Murder Charges Stemming from Miscarriage. Film at Eleven.

prisoner“War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.” – George Orwell, 1984

No, that is not a real headline. This has not happened. At least not in the context of which you are about to read. However, if you want some really interesting info on the subject, read this. Regarding the above headline, was I being intentionally misleading? Yes, obviously. Why? Because it wouldn’t be so far-fetched, considering parts of the Republicans official party platform. Could it be that I am just being paranoid? No, not really. Why? Because I can read. I often extrapolate all manner of possibilities based on past and present statements made by some of the ridiculous, retrograde, repugnant Republicans. It’s not that hard, really, given their general attitude toward women, their fundamentalist religious beliefs, their willful ignorance and their voting record.

Humor Me…

The Republican Party Platform states many things that, to me, are deplorable. One of those statements that stands out as particularly deplorable is their position on abortion with regard to the United States Constitution. Hence,

“Faithful to the ‘self-evident’ truths enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children.” 

Let’s examine this a little closer. First, we’ll take a look at the first sentence, which refers to the Declaration of Independence.

“Faithful to the ‘self-evident’ truths enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed.”

What they are referring to is the part of the Declaration that states,

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

This it part of the Declaration where the historical revisionists or just plain ignorant love to use when they shout from the mountaintops that the United States is a Christian Nation. Mainly because of use of the words “created” and “Creator.” I can tell you with great certainty that even back in colonial times, there were members of our fledgling nation, including those in positions of power, who were not Christians. There were, as there are today, a wide variety of beliefs and those who didn’t believe.

Some Declarative Facts…

The wording of the Declaration was very specific to these ends. An individual’s perception of what it means to be created or what constitutes a creator are vastly different, which is why you will not find a reference to Jesus, Mohammed or any other character that is indigenous to any one specific religion, or any religion at all. I am under no delusion that I am here, alive on planet Earth, because some god decided to mold me together out of something. My creators were Mr. and Mrs. Stefanelli, who created me by virtue of a sexual union that resulted in a combination of their DNA. My substance is that of the same substance that everything in the universe shares.

Besides, we are not governed by the Declaration of Independence, no matter how many times or how loudly the religious right quote from it. We are governed by the Constitution, which is a secular document and very purposely begins with “We the people” and of equal purpose does not contain any mention of God or Christianity. Its only references to religion are exclusionary.

The purpose of the Declaration were for the purposes of addressing such things as the benefits of trial by jury, for taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms government without any input from the people. It was about the Crown suspending its own legislatures and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate in all cases whatsoever. It was about the ability of the Monarchy to wage war on it’s own citizens and, without reservation, to plunder our seas, ravage our coasts, burn our towns, and destroy the lives of our ancestors without any judicial or legislative regulation.

But instead of recognizing the Declaration of Independence as an important document stating our insistence to individual freedom and a government of the people, by the people and for the people, it has been relegated by the religious right as a weapon to promote their desire to bring the United States back to a form of government that is almost identical to the one we originally fought so hard to be free of. Oh, what a tangled web we weave.

The sole purpose of the Declaration was to “dissolve the political bands”, not to set up a religious nation. Its authority is based on the idea that “governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,” which is contrary to the biblical concept of the Theocracy that the religious right would impose upon us.

Moving On…

The second sentence of the GOP Platform:

“We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children.” 

Obviously, this addresses the Fourteenth Amendment. I can only assume that the GOP is referring to Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Possibly section 2, but that would be a reach – even for them. Section 3 deals with insurrectionists and those giving aid to our enemies not being able to hold public office. I’ve actually heard the more delusional members of the Tea Party refer to President Obama as an insurrectionist who is giving such aid to our enemies, thus not being qualified to hold office. That, however, is fodder for another day. Section 4 just states that Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of the Amendment.

Thus, I shall address Section 1 and how the proposed “human life amendment” can fit in.

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

This is the truly dangerous part of their statement. It would basically grant citizenship to a fetus without the benefit of a birth certificate, which I find ironic considering how many “Birthers” hold public office. Refer back, if you will, to the woven and tangled web. There are so many problems with this, that it is mind-boggling. First, they would have to change the wording of the Amendment itself. Until such a time that an actual birth occurs, there can be no designation of either “born” or “naturalized.” Because it is impossible to establish an across-the-board viability date for all pregnancies, the only choice they would have would to start at the moment of conception.

However, this is problematic because there exists no definitive for pinpointing an exact moment of conception, nor at what stage of development viability occurs. So, basically, they would actually have to build in a “buffer period” sometime before conception actually took place. Sound crazy? Before you start laughing, you should read about Arizona bill H.B. 2036. While ultimately halted, it would have declared a women pregnant two weeks before conception. Basically it calculates gestational age as calculated from the first day of the last menstrual period of the pregnant woman. So, it was already thrown out there.

The Rights Of One…

Because a fetus does not have the ability to exist independently from its mother until it reaches viability, it cannot be considered a person with all the rights and responsibilities of someone who has been born, and definitely not anyone who has been naturalized. If we were to grant the same rights to a fetus as we do to the already born, it would automatically subjugate the rights of the woman. This would give the fetus greater rights than the woman carrying it.

At this point, anything can happen. Given the fundamentally religious mindset and the almost complete lack of scientific knowledge of many who are in positions to set policy, it is not difficult to imagine all manner of legislative clusterfucks that could ensue. How much of a stretch would it then be for the State to start hiring lawyers to represent unborn fetuses for civil rights violations by mothers? Imagine further if said behavior could potentially harm the fetus. Harkening back to my intentionally misleading headline, what would then prevent the State from bringing criminal charges against a mother for a miscarriage or stillbirth?

I know many of you are thinking that this is a bit of a reach, but consider that until such a time when a fetus can survive outside of the mother’s body, whatever agency was given jurisdiction over a fetus would need to have complete control and supervision over the body of the mother. If said agency deems that a mother has acted in such a way that has been deemed illegal, the State would have to act. If the actions or behavior of the mother caused a complication in a pregnancy that would bring about anything other than a healthy baby at birth, the mother could be legally liable for any number of civil charges. If the mother’s actions or behavior resulted in a miscarriage or stillbirth, then criminal charges ranging from involuntary manslaughter to premeditated murder could be levied.

It is forensically possible to determine the cause of a medically unassisted terminated pregnancy during the later stages of a pregnancy. However, how would it be determined the cause of a miscarried pregnancy during the very early stages of pregnancy? The religious right loves to say that “life begins at conception.” This is actually true, but not in the way they believe. More on that, shortly. The fact is, a majority of conceptions do not make it to term. In one of many studies, researchers used hCG tests throughout the menstrual cycles of women. These tests are highly sensitive, and through these trials, researchers found evidence that roughly 22% of all conceptions did not implant. Of those that did, about 31% ended in miscarriage.

So, who would make the determination whether or not a miscarriage is a chargeable offense? What would determine the levity of the charges? What would be considered a civil violation and what would be a criminal offense? Truth be told, the only way to determine this would be through a whole set of laws, statutes and regulations that would, by default, have to be almost completely based on morality. Guess whose morality? As well, at what point do you hold the mother liable? Was she a drug user or alcoholic before she found out she was pregnant, but her body was already in such a condition that it could not sustain a pregnancy? If so, could she still be charged? How would the behavior of a woman of child-bearing age be regulated? Would there be a microchip involved? Security cameras? Morality police?

You want to go a little deeper down the rabbit hole? How about, upon a victory by the prosecution against a woman for causing her pregnancy to be terminated, the jury was allowed to return a verdict that included the forfeiture to the State of all property, monies and other assets belonging to the woman? States that have joint and several liability laws would mean that the father of the child could also be held civilly liable as well, and his assets be taken as well. Yeah, I know, the last few paragraphs are scenarios that you might read within the pages of one of those post-apocalyptic novels or some cheesy science fiction move. But it’s only fiction until it happens. If you read the Abrahamic Holy Books, there’s plenty of batshit crazy weaved within the pages, and there are enough biblical literalists walking to and fro on the earth to give my tin-foil hat scenarios a hint of credibility.

Some Sciency Stuff…

For those of you are interested, here’s a brief rundown of what happens during the first two months of a pregnancy. It’s actually fascinating within the scope of evolutionary theory, and while “life” certainly does begin at conception, we should examine what “life” means from a biological point of view, albeit in its most basic terms. We’ll start at the same point which the religious do. Conception. At this time, the life form is called a zygote and it begins its journey by dividing into two identical cells, called blastomeres. They continue to subdivide once every twelve to twenty hours. When it reaches sixteen cells it becomes known as a morula, which usually occurs after three days gestation.

A couple of days later a cavity appears in its center and it is now called a blastocyst, which contain an inner group of cells that will eventually become the fetus and an outer group that will form the placenta. At about twelve days or so after conception, the blastocyst starts to produce hormones that are detectable in urine. It is at this point where most physicians define the start of pregnancy. It should be noted that a vast majority of zygotes never make it this far.

At about two weeks along, what is known as a ‘primitive streak‘ appears. This will later develop into the central nervous system. The zygote is now referred to as an embryo. It is still an extremely small cluster of undifferentiated tissue. After another week of development, the embryo is about the size of pen point and looks a lot like a worm. At four weeks, it looks like a tadpole, complete with gill-like structures, which is normal given our evolutionary beginnings. By seven weeks, the embryo has lost its tail, which is another point of reference to our evolutionary ancestry.

The higher functions of the brain have yet to develop, and there are no pathways to transfer pain signals. In fact, even at two months along, the embryo does not appear to be fully human. It has a reptilian brain and has not yet developed the capacity for consciousness. It is not yet sentient and is not defined as a fetus until the tenth week, at which time it is about three inches long and weighs about an ounce. Basically, the GOP platform would give the same rights and privileges that natural-born and naturalized citizens have not just to a fetus, but also to a zygote, blastocyst and embryo – virtually indistinguishable from many other life forms.

But what about the soul? Well, I don’t believe in a soul. However, the belief that the “soul” is infused at the moment of conception brings to light the fascinating and common occurrence of some multiple birth scenarios. Twins, for example. In cases of identical twins, the zygote divides into two embryos somewhere between three and thirteen days after conception. So, what, does the soul split, as well? And what about splits that occur after this stage? They result in conjoined, or Siamese, twins. Do twins share a soul, then, kind of like bunk beds?

Back To The Fourteenth…

Earlier I alluded to Section 2 of the Amendment, and how it would be a reach even for the GOP to refer to it with regard to the “human life amendment.” So, while we are still wearing our tin-foil hats, so to speak, further humor me.

Section 2.

“Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.”

We shouldn’t consider the part about being involved in the participation of rebellion or other crime, as this would be inherently difficult on the part of the yet-to-be-born. However, for purposes that involve a plethora of criteria, population demographics are extremely important. If the unborn are given fourteenth amendment status as citizens, will they be counted in a census? If so, how, given the rate of naturally miscarried pregnancies? The fact that politicians in Arizona had already put for consideration a bill that pre-dates a pregnancy to the first day of the last menstrual cycle, would the average “2.5” children be automatically added to every woman of child-bearing age?

The Real Problem…

Yes, you’ve been reading some pretty harebrained (but not impossible) scenarios that had been rolling around in my head regarding the GOP’s “human life amendment.” Consider this quote,

“Anything may happen when womanhood has ceased to be a protected occupation.” ― Virginia Woolf

The real problem here is the abrogation of the rights of women. Nary a day goes by when we don’t hear about legislation that is presented for the sole purpose of men telling women what they can do with their vagina’s. When to have sex, who to have sex with, why to have sex, when to have babies, who to have babies with, what to wear on their bodies, how to speak in the presence of a man, what may be inserted in their vagina’s by whom and for what purpose and the contribution women make to their own rapes and sexual assaults.

The list goes on, and it is getting worse. There seems to be no end to the lengths at which rich, white (mostly), Republican, fundamental Christian men will go to continue their efforts to subjugate women in the United States. What these men are doing is tantamount to legislative rape. The way that the religious right treats women is horrible, and they should be ashamed of themselves. But they aren’t, because they are immoral and unethical. They are cold, uncaring and delusional people who have no concept of anything even remotely connected to compassion.

Final Thoughts…

To those who make it their life’s work to infringe on the rights of women, not only in the arena of reproduction, but in the areas of equality in the sexual, economic and social arenas, are bigoted and discriminatory. They exhibit meddlesome religious immaturity and outright disdain and hatred of women. This is made clear every time they open their mouths and vomit their words out into the air.

These people don’t deserve to lead a kennel of dogs, let alone a human beings. In fact, that would be an insult to dogs. I have no respect for them. Not because I am an atheist, but because they don’t deserve it.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

  27 comments for “Woman Jailed on Murder Charges Stemming from Miscarriage. Film at Eleven.

  1. Esteleth, Who Knows How to Use Google
    August 24, 2012 at 12:06 pm

    Um, actually, this has already happened.

    Bei Bei Shuan was imprisoned by Indiana for “depraved heart murder” for attempting suicide while pregnant. She survived, but her child died soon after being born.

    • August 24, 2012 at 12:09 pm

      I updated the first paragraph of the blog with some pertinent info about that, Esteleth. My article today reflects on what I think could happen if a constitutional ban on abortion is passed, particularly with respect to the 14th amendment. I appreciate all the comments and emails about real-world cases, but if one reads the entirety of the post, my point emerges.

  2. Emu Sam
    August 24, 2012 at 12:35 pm

    Woman sues fetus for harassment because it won’t stop touching her; film at eleven.

    Really, how far do you have to go to put together a valid self defense argument, no matter how endowed with personhood the thing inside you is?

    • lorimakesquilts
      August 25, 2012 at 10:03 am

      Not far at all. I had severe preeclampsia during my pregnancy — the fetus was trying to kill me. Given the damage done to my body during my pregnancy I could also charge my child for that. In fact, I expect there isn’t a mother out there that couldn’t cite the damage done to her body by pregnancy as grounds for assault or some related criminal charge.

      This is utter nonsense, of course, but that’s straight where fetal personhood is leading.

  3. August 24, 2012 at 12:50 pm

    Al, this is one of your best posts yet on this topic. I have linked to it in today’s NiftyIdeas post. Yours is the best and most concise explanation of the biological process involved and (as usual!) I completely agree with the point of your post.

    I actually do not think your imaginary scenario is too far-fetched. Isn’t it the logical conclusion of the plan to criminalize abortion and the push to strip pregnant women of their human rights, after all? It may be that very few cases will actually be prosecuted openly, because the threat of prosecution may be enough to intimidate women into acquiescence, just as the threat of physical violence or social ostracism keeps women sexually, socially and economically subordinate in our culture already.

    I posted tangentially to the current rape pronouncements horror (and it is in this post that I have linked to your post). If I may, I’ll cross-post an excerpt here:

    The ultimate social priority for religion is to assert and enforce the patriarchal ideal of total authority of men over women, and to that end, religious conservatives – and their men in government – are willing to grant even rapists and abusers privileges over women, to safeguard the authority of “godly” men. In short, in order to protect the privilege of all men, themselves included of course, even “godly” men who profess to abhor rape willingly award rapists and abusers the right to reproduce using women’s bodies against their will. As always, there is no thought spared for the humanity of the women who would be sacrificed to this Christian ideology. At best, they are dismissed as the “blessed” recipients of a “gift from God”.

    • im
      August 25, 2012 at 1:53 am

      “The ultimate social priority for religion is to assert and enforce the patriarchal ideal of total authority of men over women…”

      I really don’t think that is it’s primary priority in general. Right now, maybe.

    • lorimakesquilts
      August 25, 2012 at 10:22 am

      “…the right to reproduce using women’s bodies against their will.”

      I think you’ve nailed it. The core of thousands of years of social gender-based structures comes down to biology. Women are perceived by men as having control over their (men’s) reproduction (whether that idea is true or not doesn’t seem to be relevant.) So to control their own reproduction they must control women.

      Like religion, it comes down to fear. As feminists and/or antitheists we need to address and defuse those fears if we are to be effective. I don’t have any brilliant ideas on how though. My thought process just leans too much towards the left brain side to be empathetic with the emotional aspect of fear.

  4. Blue Duck
    August 24, 2012 at 1:25 pm

    Perhaps the GOP wants to replicate Romania under Ceaucescu – I’ve read where under his regime, birth control was hard to get and abortion banned. Women of child bearing age could be forced to have medical exams to determine why a woman wasn’t pregnant or if she’d had an illegal abortion. It was hell for women under his regime, and this is the kind of thing our Theocrat GOPers would be a neat idea.

  5. F
    August 24, 2012 at 2:43 pm

    Here’s the thing: Going by the practical implications of the Declaration at the time, as well as by the general mindset of current conservatives, the fetus would have to be an adult, white male property owner for the law to apply.

  6. crowepps
    August 24, 2012 at 3:32 pm

    The case of Amanda Kimbrough is instructive, as it demonstrates what happens with this kind of law in combination with “there is no statute of limitations on murder”.

    “During her pregnancy her foetus was diagnosed with possible Down’s syndrome and doctors suggested she consider a termination, which Kimbrough declined as she is not in favour of abortion.

    The baby was delivered by caesarean section prematurely in April 2008 and died 19 minutes after birth.

    Six months later Kimbrough was arrested at home and charged with “chemical endangerment” of her unborn child on the grounds that she had taken drugs during the pregnancy – a claim she has denied.”

    SIX MONTHS LATER, based on something her social worker claims she said, with no evidence whatsoever that her supposed meth use actually caused any problems. Apparently whenever the prosecutor has a slow day, he can thumb through the back files and see if he can find a woman to persecute.

    I had a miscarriage in 1973 and another in 1980. I didn’t carefully save evidence to prove it wasn’t my fault. How could I, or any other woman in the same situation, defend myself against a murder charge?

    • comfychair
      August 24, 2012 at 7:18 pm

      Oh, that’s easy. See, all they have to do is tie you to a bunch of cement blocks and throw you in a lake. If you sink and drown, that proves you’re not guilty (but don’t forget, ‘not guilty’ in no way implies ‘innocent’ – see next paragraph). And floating is evidence of your guilt. It’s just like science, with tests and evidence and everything.

      And if by some rare chance you’re wrongly convicted, take comfort in the fact that at some point in the past you surely did something wrong and thus worthy of punishment, even if you’re technically not guilty of the current charges. USA #1!

  7. unbound
    August 24, 2012 at 3:58 pm

    Great article. However, I would like to get clarification on one thing.

    “These tests are highly sensitive, and through these trials, researchers found evidence that roughly 22% of all conceptions did not implant.”

    vs

    “At about twelve days or so after conception, the blastocyst starts to produce hormones that are detectable in urine. It is at this point where most physicians define the start of pregnancy. It should be noted that a vast majority of zygotes never make it this far.”

    I’m thinking that I don’t understand the context of the 2 statements correctly, although they appear to be discussing the same thing (sorry, I haven’t had any biology related classes since high school biology almost 3 decades ago). Could you clarify?

    Thanx.

    • lorimakesquilts
      August 25, 2012 at 10:45 am

      The hormone is produced upon implantation — 7 – 10 days after conception. It’s my understanding that it takes a very sensitive test to detect increased levels of hCG (it’s also present in endometrial tissue) immediately upon implantation. So the pregnancy test you get in the drug store (which is the same as you’ll find in a doctor’s office), while much more sensitive than they used to be, might take a few more days than the test used in a clinical research setting.

  8. comfychair
    August 24, 2012 at 5:43 pm

    Since the platform also calls for a Federal version of ‘Stand Your Ground’ laws, will there be self-defense exceptions made for pregnant women suffering health complications due to the pregnancy? Or would that only be allowed in the case of a white ‘Real American’ woman afflicted with an uneartlandishly-hued* fetus-person?

    *h/t Jesus’General

    • Midnight Rambler
      August 26, 2012 at 11:35 pm

      I suspect that would be about as successful a legal defense as when it involves a black teenager defending himself with his fists against a white man with a gun.

  9. August 24, 2012 at 6:24 pm

    Women are already being jailed for miscarriage and stillbirths. In Iowa, a woman was charged for accidentally falling down the stairs and having a miscarriage because she admitted to a nurse that she had had doubts about continuing the pregnancy when she first found out she was pregnant. Women are losing their children for giving birth vaginally at home to avoid c-sections and even if the child was born fine the fact a pregnant woman declined surgery which is okay for almost any other non-gestating adult, but not a pregnant woman.

    http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/ is a valuable research resource.

  10. Hypatia's Daughter
    August 24, 2012 at 10:37 pm

    #4 Blue Duck
    Ceaucescu’s policy was also a hell on earth for all the unwanted children born. They were put in overcrowded, underfunded orphanages where they received adequate physical care (food, bathing and medical care) but no nurturing from the overworked staff. Imagine cribs where 2 or 3 babies were dumped until they were toddlers with no hugs, no baby talk, no playing – all those things that are necessary for normal emotional, mental and physical development.

    • sambarge
      August 25, 2012 at 7:35 am

      In the end, Ceaucescu’s policy was hell for him and the missus as well. Their overthrow of the totalitarian government he headed and the executions of Nicolae and Elena Ceaucescu were both a direct result of the actions of young people in 1989; the same generation that 23 yrs earlier Ceaucescu had decreed women must give birth to. In a very real sense, Ceaucescu was killed by the snowflake babies he demanded be created.

      Take note, Republicans. We make our own fate and fate can be a bitch.

  11. August 26, 2012 at 3:11 am

    Since the platform also calls for a Federal version of ‘Stand Your Ground’ laws, will there be self-defense exceptions made for pregnant women suffering health complications due to the pregnancy?

    That all depends on the race of the fetus and if it’s wearing a hoodie.

  12. steve84
    August 26, 2012 at 7:44 am

    For them life begins at conception and ends at birth. They don’t give a fuck about living people or children. After they’re born it’s pure social darwinism. They aren’t in favor of any policy and laws that actually support young children and families. Especially families they deem inferior, such as single mothers and gay couples. And they actively try to dismantle the social safety net.

    Or take a look at their unwavering support for warmongering and the death penalty for how much they are about people.

  13. Switchhttr
    August 26, 2012 at 11:11 am

    What about chimeras (people with two sets of DNA)? Are they each really two people, since they result from two fertilized eggs combining and eventually developing into one person? Do they get to vote twice? Do they have two souls? Can they lend one to a set of identical twins?

    There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in any religiosity.

  14. Kate
    August 27, 2012 at 1:33 pm

    What I’m interested in is how the GOP will know whether my sexually active body has committed murder each month. If you follow these draconian ideas to their logical conclusions, and each fertilized egg is to be endowed with the rights of a human citizen under the constitution, then how are lawmakers and law enforcers supposed to differentiate between a heavy period and a “murdered child?” Either sex will have to be monitored and legislated, or the lives and menstruation cycles of every woman of childbearing age will have to be monitored and legislated — how else are they honestly supposed to follow through on their rhetoric? Your hypothetical scenario, Mr. Stefanelli, is probably not far from probable circumstance if the GOP has its way. As it’s been said before, pregnancy is a zero-sum game, so if these people are insistent on granting rights to fertilized eggs, then, by necessity, rights must be stripped away from women.

    • naturalcynic
      August 28, 2012 at 12:09 am

      What I’m interested in is how the GOP will know whether my sexually active body has committed murder each month.

      Tampon examiners. It won’t actually be a federal job, it will be an unfunded mandate for the states. The states will then, of course, contract it out to political supporters who will hire [at minimum wage] former middle class folks. Unemployment solved as a bonus.

  15. August 27, 2012 at 3:28 pm

    Kate, I suspect they don’t give a damn about the ‘mere’ egg it’s the sperm (you know the un-polluted precious bodily fluids) that theycare about.

    • Kate
      August 27, 2012 at 10:03 pm

      They don’t give a damn about an egg or a sperm on its own, but they do give a damn about a fertilized egg — in fact, the personhood movements are focused on granting full constitutional rights to fertilized eggs, “from the moment of conception.” This is before the fertilized egg attaches to the uterine wall (when the medical definition of pregnancy actually begins), and a good 1/3 of these fertilized eggs will fail to do so. Some of them that do will be spontaneously aborted anyway, before the woman even knows she’s pregnant. Hence the hypothetical scenario I wrote above.

  16. naturalcynic
    August 28, 2012 at 12:13 am

    Aw, hell. Both sperm and eggs are alive and their [always alive] lineages can be traced back about 3.5 billion years.

Leave a Reply