I am outraged....

[domalicat]

It seems unbelievable, but the Bush Administration is quietly trying to redefine "abortion" to include birth control. The Houston Chronicle says this could wipe out dozens of state laws that protect women's reproductive freedom and protect rape victims. And this proposed "rule change" doesn't need congressional approval

Comments

[neurotap]

"Pro-Lifers" have been trying to move the ruling that has been the pinnacle argument that abortion is legal for a long time. What a lot of people don't realize is that the trial (Forgive my absence of exact case name) gave women the right over their Reproductive Organs vs. Society determined "right"s vs "Wrong"s. So I don't know how much I'm viewing this as being "truthful" vs. hype.

I'm also a little worried about everything being put on The Bush Administration. People tend to blame the head-honcho even though most of this stuff has F all (sorry for the harsh letters) to do with him, or even the people he actively put in office.

Times are tough and shit goes awry people tend to blame the president (Look at economy vs. voting habits[Economy down == Vote to change party "ruler"s -- usually])

[domalicat]

With an issue like this one I don't really care who is at the head of it, so much as how to prevent it from becoming reality. I feel it is a bit extreme to call birth control abortion, based on the principles of how it works.

The first thing that ran through my mind is: if they ban birth control the only time it is safe/ok to have sex is when procreating. Since when is it ok for government to control our sex lives beyond the "legal" age requirement. So if a couple does not want children then they can't have sex, because they have no other options? Or what about those like myself who are on birth control because they cannot afford a child.

It's the first I've heard on the subject and will do more research later and just wanted to put it out there in case there was anyone else living under the same rock that I am.

[neurotap]

The problem is that there is only this one case that's out there that applies to this specific ruling.
So if it were overruled for any reason it would have to make it all the way back up the system before being solidified. I don't think a petition is going to do much unfortunately :(

[domalicat]

I figured as much, it just made me feel like I had a "voice" for a few moments.

[morwentf]

Actually, fundamentalists and right-wing politicians have been making this argument for a long time: that the only appropriate purpose of sex is reproduction, and attempts to control sexuality (particularly women's sexuality, but not always limited to that) have pretty much always been a part of our society. The idea that our society is based on personal freedom of the individual is only applied in a very limited way, to our economic behavior -- it's practically gospel that people should be free to do what they want with their property, and should be free to buy what they want, but it's never really been true in our society that people are free to do what they want with their sexuality