angryThe goal of radial "conservatives" is less about preventing abortions and more about controlling women's bodies. This is unacceptable; the government has no business making intimate decisions about an individual's body.
You are not having a moment of déjà vu. This is real. This is actually
happening.Tell the Administration to reconsider the harmful decision to undermine
women's reproductive health:
http://action.nwlc.org/site/R?i=KI0aIJEr_0lSQWnz-N28twEarlier this year, women around the country stood up and spoke out against
the Stupak Amendment, which would have prohibited women from obtaining
coverage of abortion care, even with their own, private funds.But recently, the Administration has indicated the intention to apply what
is in effect the rejected Stupak Amendment to the newly unveiled
pre-existing condition health insurance plans. This ban will prevent women
with serious pre-existing medical conditions from getting the abortion
coverage they need to protect their health - and will not even allow women
the ability to pay for such coverage with their own private premium
dollars.Tell the Administration to reconsider this decision and stand up for the
health of these vulnerable women:
http://action.nwlc.org/site/R?i=dXIeYR9UEkOpDgErciFCswThe National Women's Law Center will not rest until the restrictions on
abortion coverage are fixed. Thank you for continuing to fight with us to
protect women's health.Sincerely,
Judy Waxman,
Vice President for Health and Reproductive Rights,
National Women's Law Center
July 16 2010, 17:22:50 UTC 10 years ago
At first I thought you misspelled radical but they do seem to think they're at the center.
*laugh*
July 16 2010, 17:42:54 UTC 10 years ago
July 20 2010, 03:50:08 UTC 10 years ago
Meaning, that it is then ALSO ok to force bone marrow donations, kidney donations, etc. from anyone- including men- if it might save someone else's life.
Now, when I've said this, men especially are OUTRAGED at the concept- but really, what's different about it? If it's OK to force women to go through pregnancy for the sake of a different "person", then what's different about men being required to do similarly?
O_O
July 20 2010, 04:03:20 UTC 10 years ago
I would not be for that either, though. Violating anyone's body is not merely wrong but damaging.
Re: O_O
July 20 2010, 04:11:15 UTC 10 years ago
However, if we're requiring it of SOME people, we should be requiring it of ALL people, including men. If it's OK to require person A to go through painful, debilitating, and possibly fatal procedures to save someone else's life... then that should be imposed all around, not just on women.
Not that I favor this in general, but...
I think the state's control should absolutely end at the perimeters of my body... but if that's not true, and MY body is not sacrosanct, then NO ONE'S body should be immune to the state's meddling for the sake of someone else's "good"..
And if people don't like that possibility for themselves? don't try to impose it on others.
Re: O_O
July 20 2010, 19:43:54 UTC 10 years ago
I may be fuzzy on the details, but I believe the essay cited a couple of court cases involving this. Someone needed a kidney or bone marrow transplant to live; all the relatives were encouraged to get tested to see if they were compatible; in each case one was found to be an ideal match... then changed his mind and refused to donate. The potential recipient sued. In both cases it was deemed that bodily integrity was an essential personal right, and NO ONE has the right to force an invasive medical procedure upon another.
Obviously there's an big exception if "another" is female, and the one benefiting is a fetus. :P
The tricky part of the argument in practice is that the pro-forced-pregnancy people reply "OMG!!! You're saying that a fetus is just an organ and not a different person!!!! TEH HORRORZ!!!!" etc. That fact that this proves they can neither read nor think does not affect this; maybe something with an easy-to-grasp diagram noting the equivalents would....