As Scott Lemieux said, lots of people said SCOTUS would never reverse Roe. Republican officials didn’t really care about it. Voter mobilization came from promising to kill Roe, not from actually doing it. Anyone who claimed abortion rights were at risk was just scaremongering.
Nice political analysis, dudes. While I don’t know how many voters the many claims of this sort swayed, the claims are still dead wrong. Wewound up with enough Republican judges to end abortion rights, even if some of them had to lie to do it. The results will be considerably worse than pre-Roe. Nor, if they get the federal clout to do it, will they blink at passing a nationwide ban and ignoring all their states’ rights pretenses. Or maybe some right-wing judge declares that fetuses are people and therefore the mother has no rights.
And gay marriage and contraception are at risk, even though the Log Cabin Republicans insist gay marriage is secure. I suspect if Obergefell goes, they’ll be reassuring everyone that it’s still okay to vote Republican, it’s not like they’d make homosexuality illegal again (if they ca, they will).
It’s impressive, and a hopeful sign, that so many women I know are angry about this. Regardless of whether they’re at risk of pregnancy, the idea that any woman can be coerced to bear a child against her will has touched a nerve. A lot of nerves. As I’ve said in Undead Sexist Cliches, while I’m pro-choice and pro-women’s rights in general, I don’t have a woman’s perspective or lived experience. Seeing the furious reactions reminds me, again, that this is so.
I’m also reflecting on how the ban on abortion neatly fits like a jigsaw puzzle piece with all the other pieces of misogyny. The conviction only nymphomaniac sluts need birth control. That shotgun weddings, even to a rapist, are preferable to abortion or contraception. That wives should put out, even if they’re don’t want to (“Why do we assume that it is terribly irresponsible for a man to refuse to go to work because he is not in the mood, but a woman can — indeed, ought to — refuse sex because she is not in the mood?” — Dennis Prager).
After all, if married woman can’t get contraception — and if Griswold is overturned, states could outlaw that — some women may choose to avoid sex rather than risk another baby. And while conservatives want single women to stay virgin, a lot of right wingers assume wives are obligated to put out. Not only do we have people like Prager and DC McAlister who think wives should just lie there and think of England, plenty of conservatives think marital rape is not rape. So if a woman doesn’t want to have sex and get pregnant, her wishes don’t matter, not really. In the eyes of misogynist religious conservative Douglas Wilson, man dominates; women submits, and sex can never be fun for both partners.
They also have multiple ways to rationalize away any discomfort with rape victims having to bear their rapist’s child. It’s God’s design. If it was real rape she wouldn’t be pregnant. The victim isn’t feeling traumatized, she’s feeling shame for letting some man use her as a masturbatory aid. In short, she’s a slut at best and a lying slut at worst. So no need to feel guilty about the rape victim’s trauma, or the amount she’ll have to spend on ob/gyn care — she should have just kept her legs pressed together.
3 responses to “So it’s now legal to ban abortion”
I had some guy tell me yesterday that “abbreviating a woman’s rights” when she became pregnant was perfectly acceptable.
He was dreadfully offended when I pointed out that this was enslavement.
They really seem to think we should respect their moral superiority, even when they don’t have any.
Pingback: Criticizing Republicans is like shooting fish in a barrel | Fraser Sherman's Blog