A couple of quotes that capture my thoughts on those who think the “unruly mob,” to use the Lieutenant Governor’s words, was somehow worse than the shenanigans leading up to 11:50 p.m. on Tuesday, June 25, 2013 in the Texas Capitol building, not to mention the shenanigans of SB5 itself:
Some have raised a concern about the “mob tactics” used last night by the citizens in the Texas Senate. Normally, I would agree that the shouting, effectively making sure that in the last 15 minutes after the filibuster was ended no vote could be recorded, is troublesome at the least. However, we have to remember that the senators, specifically the Republican senators, and the lieutenant governor, twisted the chamber’s rules to end that filibuster. Ignoring the back brace, they ruled Senator Davis out of order because she spoke on the topic of Planned Parenthood’s budget, and then again because she discussed a state law requiring a sonogram before an abortion. Given that the bill in question deals with the regulation of abortion procedures, providers, and facilities, no reasonable person would say that those two topics are not germane. Continue reading →
There is something very dystopian about the notion that the health, dignity, and safety of millions of women rests on the back of one woman, who must stand and talk without water or bathroom breaks for thirteen hours, in order to protect said women. Margaret Atwood didn’t write this. This is real. This is the Texas lege.
I did not know who Cathie Adams was until a moment ago, and I can pretty much guarantee that history will not care who she is. All that matters is that she is vile, despicable, and yet another embarrassment to the great state of Texas. At least she doesn’t hold elected office.
Anyway, she tweeted a few sentiments that apparently emerged from a rift between our universe and one that would allow someone to think this is an acceptable thing to say:
Stinky stalking feminists wearing orange shirts are FEW in the Tx Senate gallery.
As my friend Lynn said, “Class, Texas. Talk about lazy smear tactics. Calling people ‘Feminazis?’ Really? In 2013?”
I’ve already expended too much mental energy on this waste of space. I’m actually glad, though, that she and people like her are talking, because we are not going to forget what you said and the kind of people you are.
In a very shouty exchange between Thom Hartmann and professional smug person Austin Petersen regarding the American health care system and “liberty,” an interesting red herring kept popping up. Hartmann kept asking Petersen if libertarians believe in the “right to life” espoused in the Declaration of Independence, and Petersen kept trying to change the subject by bringing up abortion (specifically, liberals’ support for abortion rights).
To his credit, Hartmann didn’t take the bait, but it is a question worth exploring. See, Petersen was trying to confuse two different meanings of the “right to life.” Hartmann was talking about the fundamental right of individuals to live their lives, while Petersen was referring to a very narrow concept that privileges the right of an unborn zygote/embryo/blastocyst/fetus over any rights that the pregnant person may have over their own body. The “right to life” of a clump of cells with slightly different DNA than the mother, in this definition, by necessity trumps the “right to life” of the mother. However, in the Declaration of Independence definition of “right to life,” I would argue that it is the mother, first and foremost, whose “right to life” is protected.
In order to protect the “right to life” of the zygote/embryo/blastocyst/fetus, it is necessary to supersede the “right to life” of the mother. This is not to say that the mother’s actual life is threatened in every instance, but the mother’s right to bodily autonomy is always secondary. Libertarians, or at least the kind of libertarians represented by Petersen, will not abide any sort of infringement on their liberty by anybody, at all, ever, apparently, including Petersen’s belief that tax collection directly involves someone coming to your house with a gun. (I find this viewpoint hopelessly childish, but that’s a conversation for another day.) Petersen seems to believe that he has the sole authority to assert and protect his own rights, and no responsibility to defend the rights of others if he does not want to.
Here’s my first question, then, for libertarians of Petersen’s ilk: do you believe that anyone other than the zygote/embryo/blastocyst/fetus itself has the right or duty to assert or protect its own “right to life” (in your definition)?
If you answer “no,” then let’s just let the zygote/embryo/blastocyst/fetuses of the world find a way to petition for redress of grievances themselves, and stop trying to derail discussions.
If you answer “yes,” how exactly should others assert or protect those rights, in a way that does not infringe the essential liberty of the mother? You have pretty much already established your principle that liberty can only be curtailed by individual consent. I could see your argument that, by consenting to sexual activity, a pregnant person also consented to bear the child. Do you see where I am going with this? It’s not always a product of “consent.” Additionally, why can’t “consent” be withdrawn? I suspect you would reserve the right to withdraw your own consent to just about anything, so how is this different? That “consent” argument is fatally flawed.
I have seen countless ways that people who oppose government intervention in anything except the uterus try to weasel out of this question. I’m even less polite about it than Thom Hartmann. I know that the majority of people who claim to be “pro-life,” but want to assert dominance over all the uteruses, are full of crap when it actually comes to caring about “life.” There is no way to definitively eliminate abortion without state power. You know it and I know it, but most of you don’t have the courage to admit it.
I’ll ask the question more simply: why do you only want to use state power to control women?
Over the past few days, something truly remarkable has happened here in Austin. As the Republican-controlled state legislature has used a special session to consider yet more scientifically-baseless and needlessly oppressive bills regarding abortion rights, thousands of people crowded into the Capitol building to stage a citizen’s filibuster. I am in awe of the many brave and tireless people who are standing up to the people who claim to be “pro-life” but in reality could not care less about the life of anyone who isn’t a wealthy donor. I have nothing, nothing at all, but contempt right now for the liars, fools, and cowards in the Legislature who are supporting these bills, and a similar level of disdain for the people who support them. Lest you think Texas is a cesspool of adherents to a dying ideology, though, the thousands of people who donned orange and crowded the building are a testament to everything that is good and right about Texas. Do not give up on Texas. We may surprise you yet.
For some excellent coverage of what has been going on at the Capitol, I highly recommend Julie Gills’ blog:
State Rep. Senfronia Thompson offered an amendment that would exclude rape and incest victims from the 20-week abortion ban, but Republicans weren’t having any of it. Rep. Thompson even brandished a wire hanger to illustrate the seriousness of what Republicans are trying to do. It was no use, though, as Republicans in the Texas House generally don’t like to consider consequences like that.
A few lowlights from the past few days:
– Rep. Jodie Laubenberg (R-Murphy) wins my first-ever Facepalm Award, because she doesn’t know what rape kits do. Proving that she is not only dumb, but also immune to self-awareness, she voted against insurance coverage for prenatal care in 2007 because the beneficiaries of such coverage “[are] not born yet”:
A priceless exchange occurred between Harper-Brown cohort Jodie Laubenberg of Rockwall and Dallas Dem Rafael Anchía. Laubenberg proposed to enforce a three-month waiting period before expectant mothers could begin receiving prenatal and perinatal care under CHIP. Anchía pointed out that the eligibility change would kick nearly 100,000 children out of the CHIP program. “That is absolutely untrue!” Laubenberg shot back, proving her point by waving a sheet of paper. Then again, “That is absolutely untrue!”
“You know,” Anchía replied, “I can hear you yelling, but just because you yelled, it doesn’t make it true.” Anchía pointed out the consequences of denying health care to the unborn. “You do know, don’t you, that these are U.S. citizens?”
“But they’re not born yet,” Laubenberg, a “family values” conservative, retorted. Dukes, standing behind Anchía at the back mic, whipped her head around in a shocked double take. Anchía, smelling blood, observed, “You have an anti-life amendment,” which set Laubenberg off on a loud tirade in which she claimed to be the most pro-life member of the House.
– State Rep. Jonathan Stickland (R-Crazytown) wants to make sure we all know that he was not trying to threaten anyone when he tweeted that he is thankful for the “right 2 protect ourselves & the 2nd amendment” amid all the liberals crowding around the Capitol. Stickland, who apparently “brings his gun to work every day,” thinks that anyone who might connect his reference to the right to own a gun to any sort of threatening posture is simply engaging in an “illogical liberal attack.”
Some days u r extra thankful we still have the right 2 protect ourselves & the 2nd amendment-Today is 1 of those days #txlege
If we take Stickland at his word, then he needs to work on the clarity of his writing skills, or at least his tweeting skills. In the same article on his site, however, Stickland wrote that “only liberals would depict legislation that increases the standard of care women are receiving in health clinics as a ‘war on women,'” thus establishing that Stickland is either too dishonest or too stupid to be taken seriously by grownups.
– Finally, Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst warned on Sunday that the governor will call a second special session of the Legislature, which is normally supposed to wrap everything up in May, unless it passes “certain items.” He didn’t specify the “items,” but he and most other Texas Republicans suck at being subtle.
The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (h/t Shannon) measures “hostile” and “benevolent” sexism, and is sure to prompt defensive reactions from dudes who, like, respect women, man. I scored a 0.45 on hostile sexism, and a 1.00 on benevolent sexism, which apparently makes me a very below-average sexist. I can live with that.
– I don’t mean to alarm anyone, but this snake can open doors.
– Jon Gosselin killed the Ed Hardy brand, according to Ed Hardy. I’m so glad we got that out of the way.
– Here’s a story that sounds like what might happen if the producers of the Saw series made a Lifetime Original Movie:
A teenage girl beheaded her father with a bush knife after he raped her at their home in Papua New Guinea, a report said Monday, with community leaders protecting her, saying the man deserved to die.
The Post-Courier newspaper said the 18-year-old chopped her father’s head clean off after he repeatedly raped her last Tuesday night in their village in the poverty-stricken Pacific nation’s Western Highlands.
The report cited a pastor as saying the father, in his mid-40s, had three other children and raped his daughter when they were alone in the house after the mother and the other siblings visited relatives.
Pastor Lucas Kumi said the man went to his daughter’s room in the night and raped her repeatedly.
“The father wanted to rape his daughter again in the morning inside the house and that was when the young girl picked up the bush knife and chopped her father’s head off,” he said.
Community leaders are now refusing to hand the girl over to police, vowing to protect her.
I can’t really add anything to that, and I’m sure as hell not going to snark about it.
