...there is very real reason for people living in Bible Belt states to fear that access to female-controlled contraception could be in peril if the Supreme Court determines that women do not in fact have a right to privacy. Opposition to the right to use contraception comes out of a combination of the belief that women should have less of a right to self-determination than men and fear of female sexuality. Both of these beliefs are ones that the vast majority of Americans subconsciously respond to--feminists included, as we're human and absorb sexist beliefs, too--so really the issue for most people is not whether or not the state should supress women's reproductive rights, but just to what degree is going too far. So, without court protection of women's reproductive rights, it seems quite likely to me that some of the more hardcore sexist parts of the country will start exploring the option of banning the birth control pill.
I think those things are important for we who have no reproductive systems and/or live in the godless lands like California and Washington State to remember. For us, this is largely theoretical.
For a disturbingly large number of people, it's a very real possibility that control of a woman's body could legally be placed in the hands of men.
And personally, I like women's bodies too much to see what men will do to them, given that we (in the larger sense) tend to fuck up everything we get our hands on.
The NY Times has a pretty good piece on how the past "Chaotic Week [Has Left] Bush Team on Defensive." I should certainly hope so. Among the points they make is to underline again that the Supreme Court nominations are going to be Bush's most long-lasting legacy:
President Nixon himself summarized the stakes, when he announced Justice Rehnquist's nomination on television on the night of Oct. 21, 1971. "Presidents come and go, but the Supreme Court, through its decisions, goes on forever," he said, adding: "They will make decisions which will affect your lives and the lives of your children for generations to come."
And for those of you new to the blog:
Judge Roberts has disputed the right to privacy laid out in Roe v. Wade, and urged that the case be overruled...Judge Roberts has advocated for prayer in public schools and for weakening the wall between church and state.
(Source: The HRC)
He also:
played a [broad] behind-the-scenes role for the Republican camp in the aftermath of the 2000 election... -- as legal consultant, lawsuit editor and prep coach for arguments before the nation's highest court, according to the man who drafted him for the job
(Source: The Miami Herald via TPM)
And that is, as they say, the tip of the iceberg. This is a time when Senate Democrats need to remember that sometimes to speak is more important than to be re-elected.
No comments:
Post a Comment