pants_of_doom: (naked red hand)
A little analysis on Napoli's description of who would be deserving of a rape exception to the recent South Dakota law, followed by semi-coherent anger:

A real-life description to me would be a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged. The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated. I mean, that girl could be so messed up, physically and psychologically, that carrying that child could very well threaten her life.

Broken down:

brutally raped, savaged - No passive rape, no rape where the victim didn't fight out of fear of getting hurt, no getting hit a few times and deciding fighting wasn't worth the extra trauma. Only really brutal rape.

The girl was a virgin
Because rape is only really traumatic to virgins, and only to girls, not to women.

she was religious - Only the religious deserve protection, apparently. Who wants to lay odds that 'religious' also means 'christian'?

she planned on saving her virgininty until she was married - This really reads as fetishistic, but also - no incidental virgins, no one who's not sure about sex before marriage. Also, it means only people who plan to get married, which by extension likely means only people whose marriages are legally recognized.

brutalized and raped, sodomized - Vaginal rape isn't enough.

as bad as you can possibly make it - The use of "you" here shows that he's relating more to the rapist than the girl - relating to the girl would be something like "as bad as could possibly happen to you", "as bad as someone could possibly do to you".

If this were really about how much Napoli cared about fetuses, the line would probably run more to that the value of a fetus isn't dependent on whether it was created by rape. This is about punishing women for having sex for nonprocreational reasons, the cure for which is - surprise - procreation whether we like it or not. I have a really hard time understanding this mindset. I think the decision to have children is so personal and important that people should only make it for themselves.

I am also extremely tired of people not getting that the policy issue is state's interest vs women's interest, not women vs fetuses. The issue is whether the state can have an interest compelling enough to override a woman's interest in such an important decision and her right to bodily integrity (I think this is the same provision of the constitution that lets you keep both kidneys even though people die every day waiting for transplants - your interest outweighs theirs because it's your body). Groups in the US want the Supreme Court to decide that the state does have such an interest and prohibit abortion, while decrying China's one child per family policy, even though these have the same ideological background - in both cases, the state's interest is considered compelling. This is why framing the argument as pro-life vs pro-choice is inaccurate, other than that making abortion illegal doesn't reduce its occurrence but does mean women die. The issue is favoring personal choice or favoring state control. If the state gets to make the call, if it has the compelling interest, it can ban abortion, sterilize women on welfare, limit the number of children people have, require that fetuses be aborted if they'd have certain disabilities, require that women who've been raped take emergency contraception. Women making our own choices can pick whatever we think is best for us, rather than having our reproductive lives dictated to us. I'd love to see a world where every kid is wanted and cherished and all that, but I don't think there's a way to legislate it that will work better than letting women make our own decisions.

This is the same issue, by the way, as marriage equality - whether a pre-ordained structure can be applied to everyone or whether we're free to make our own decisions.
pants_of_doom: (Default)
A little analysis on Napoli's description of who would be deserving of a rape exception to the recent South Dakota law, followed by semi-coherent anger:

A real-life description to me would be a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged. The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated. I mean, that girl could be so messed up, physically and psychologically, that carrying that child could very well threaten her life.

Broken down:

brutally raped, savaged - No passive rape, no rape where the victim didn't fight out of fear of getting hurt, no getting hit a few times and deciding fighting wasn't worth the extra trauma. Only really brutal rape.

The girl was a virgin
Because rape is only really traumatic to virgins, and only to girls, not to women.

she was religious - Only the religious deserve protection, apparently. Who wants to lay odds that 'religious' also means 'christian'?

she planned on saving her virgininty until she was married - This really reads as fetishistic, but also - no incidental virgins, no one who's not sure about sex before marriage. Also, it means only people who plan to get married, which by extension likely means only people whose marriages are legally recognized.

brutalized and raped, sodomized - Vaginal rape isn't enough.

as bad as you can possibly make it - The use of "you" here shows that he's relating more to the rapist than the girl - relating to the girl would be something like "as bad as could possibly happen to you", "as bad as someone could possibly do to you".

If this were really about how much Napoli cared about fetuses, the line would probably run more to that the value of a fetus isn't dependent on whether it was created by rape. This is about punishing women for having sex for nonprocreational reasons, the cure for which is - surprise - procreation whether we like it or not. I have a really hard time understanding this mindset. I think the decision to have children is so personal and important that people should only make it for themselves.

I am also extremely tired of people not getting that the policy issue is state's interest vs women's interest, not women vs fetuses. The issue is whether the state can have an interest compelling enough to override a woman's interest in such an important decision and her right to bodily integrity (I think this is the same provision of the constitution that lets you keep both kidneys even though people die every day waiting for transplants - your interest outweighs theirs because it's your body). Groups in the US want the Supreme Court to decide that the state does have such an interest and prohibit abortion, while decrying China's one child per family policy, even though these have the same ideological background - in both cases, the state's interest is considered compelling. This is why framing the argument as pro-life vs pro-choice is inaccurate, other than that making abortion illegal doesn't reduce its occurrence but does mean women die. The issue is favoring personal choice or favoring state control. If the state gets to make the call, if it has the compelling interest, it can ban abortion, sterilize women on welfare, limit the number of children people have, require that fetuses be aborted if they'd have certain disabilities, require that women who've been raped take emergency contraception. Women making our own choices can pick whatever we think is best for us, rather than having our reproductive lives dictated to us. I'd love to see a world where every kid is wanted and cherished and all that, but I don't think there's a way to legislate it that will work better than letting women make our own decisions.

This is the same issue, by the way, as marriage equality - whether a pre-ordained structure can be applied to everyone or whether we're free to make our own decisions.
pants_of_doom: (brown and blue watercolor)
Constitutional law has given me enough knowledge about the various Justices that I feel okay having an opinion about the outcome of a challenge to Roe v. Wade. I'm basing this on the decisions I've read, but mostly Planned Parenthood of PA v. Casey, the case that gutted Roe and brought us crap like the 24-hour hold.

Scalia, Thomas, and Alito will vote to overturn it. Scalia and Thomas always vote to overturn it and I don't think it's likely that they've become enlightened since the last time. Rehnquist did, too. Alito is the same kind of ideologue and I'd be very surprised if he didn't vote to overturn.

Stevens will vote to keep it legal. He voted against the restrictions Casey wanted to impose, including the ones that passed. Souter was with the plurality in Casey and is okay with some restrictions but I'd be very surprised if he voted to overturn, same as O'Connor (also with the plurality in Casey). Breyer and Ginsburg weren't on the court for the Casey decision, but were with the majority in Stenberg v. Carhart, the case that said that Nebraska can't ban particular procedures (the "partial-birth" abortion ban).

This leaves Kennedy and Roberts. Both would have to join the majority to overturn Roe. Kennedy is a bit more conservative than Souter - they held the same in Casey, but Kennedy would have allowed the ban to pass in Stenberg. Roberts is an unknown quantity. I'm less worried about Roberts over the long term than I think most people are because most Justices move left after appointment, with the exception of the ideologues like Scalia and Thomas. My favorite current Justice is Stevens, and he was a Ford appointee. Souter was Bush I, O'Connor was Reagan.

The big thing here, I think, isn't Roe being overturned so much as being further gutted. Getting a majority for greater restriction isn't likely to be hard.
pants_of_doom: (Default)
Constitutional law has given me enough knowledge about the various Justices that I feel okay having an opinion about the outcome of a challenge to Roe v. Wade. I'm basing this on the decisions I've read, but mostly Planned Parenthood of PA v. Casey, the case that gutted Roe and brought us crap like the 24-hour hold.

Scalia, Thomas, and Alito will vote to overturn it. Scalia and Thomas always vote to overturn it and I don't think it's likely that they've become enlightened since the last time. Rehnquist did, too. Alito is the same kind of ideologue and I'd be very surprised if he didn't vote to overturn.

Stevens will vote to keep it legal. He voted against the restrictions Casey wanted to impose, including the ones that passed. Souter was with the plurality in Casey and is okay with some restrictions but I'd be very surprised if he voted to overturn, same as O'Connor (also with the plurality in Casey). Breyer and Ginsburg weren't on the court for the Casey decision, but were with the majority in Stenberg v. Carhart, the case that said that Nebraska can't ban particular procedures (the "partial-birth" abortion ban).

This leaves Kennedy and Roberts. Both would have to join the majority to overturn Roe. Kennedy is a bit more conservative than Souter - they held the same in Casey, but Kennedy would have allowed the ban to pass in Stenberg. Roberts is an unknown quantity. I'm less worried about Roberts over the long term than I think most people are because most Justices move left after appointment, with the exception of the ideologues like Scalia and Thomas. My favorite current Justice is Stevens, and he was a Ford appointee. Souter was Bush I, O'Connor was Reagan.

The big thing here, I think, isn't Roe being overturned so much as being further gutted. Getting a majority for greater restriction isn't likely to be hard.

May 2017

S M T W T F S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
212223242526 27
28293031   

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags