Reply #21: That's the endgame of the "pro-life" movement. A precise read of the HLA [View All]

[Warren DeMontague]

plank in the Republican Platform makes it clear that they want 14th amendment rights for fertilized eggs; and most major "pro-life" organizations in this country feel that using the BC pill is tantamount to getting an abortion... they make no distinction.

Also, the legal decision the "pro-life" movement really has in its sights isn't Roe so much as Griswold.. obstensibly because of that pesky "right to privacy" they hate so much, but also because the secret fantasy is to go back to the days when people- particularly unmarried people- could be hauled off to jail for possessing or buying condoms.

Add to that the widespread support in the "pro-life" community for pharmacists who refuse to fill birth control prescriptions and dispense lectures on Jesus, instead; and the counter-intuitive fact that they work overtime against any contracpetive-based societal solutions (like the Putting Prevention First Act) which -duh!- would reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and by extension the number of abortions. Clearly abortion is one front in the war, legal contraception is the next one... all along with institution of "Biblical law" and bible-based punishments (like death by stoning) for "crimes" such as homosexuality, adultery, or "unchastity".

Yeah, it's fucked up to think that the Christian Reconstructionist kooks might be close to any level of power in society higher than dogcatcher... but unfortunately these are the folks who are setting the agenda at the highest levels of government. One need only look at the bullshit which has enveloped the FDA these past 6 years.

As for Patricia Heaton? Honestly, I don't know -or care- what that rightwing pinhead says her views on contraception versus surgical abortion are- by virtue of the fundamentalist whackjobs she's shilling for, the end of legal contraception, in a Totalitarian Christian Theocracy, is where she's trying to drag us all. It's worth noting that her organization, "Feminists for Life" has this to say:

http://www.feministsforlife.org/FAQ/index.htm#contraception

Some FFL members and supporters support the use of non-abortifacient contraception while others oppose contraception for a variety of reasons. FFL is concerned that certain forms of contraception have had adverse health effects on women.

Since the "pro-life" movement is in universal agreement that the pill is an abortifacent, clearly "FFL" is anti oral contraceptives. Apparently some of them are actually okay with people legally using "non-abortifacent contraception" (Zounds! Presumably only in the context of a Christ-centric marriage, I'm sure) but the overarching message is that contraception "concerns" them.

The bottom line? They don't give a shit about women, rights, babies or abortion, because the best way to reduce the number of abortions in this country is for there to be universal access to safe, effective birth control. What it's really about is telling other people how (not) to fuck, limiting their choices, and throwing women who want abortions in jail. As usual.