If You Vote for ROMNEY You Believe…

Soap box time.  If you are a Republican and offend easily you can just ignore this but I feel this morning very strongly the need to soapbox.  Mostly because I’m afraid.  I’m very afraid and concerned for this country.

If you vote for Romney you believe that whatever reasons Republicans seem to consider important are of more importance than other people’s human rights.  You believe that a woman should have NO say over her own body if she gets pregnant–no choice whether or not she wants to be a mom or give birth. You believe that women should be punished by being forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy for the “crime” of simply engaging in sex for pleasure–having a sex life like men do.

You also believe that any tax paying person born gay in this country should not be allowed to enjoy full rights as persons and citizens of this country. That is what you believe. If you don’t believe these things, then you have the opinion that human rights aren’t as important or should have as high a priority as some other things…so long as it isn’t your human rights that are on the table being endangered.

I am frankly dismayed and disgusted by what religion’s influence has done and continues to do in this country. In a world that is grossly overpopulated already (this is a fact–look it up), so much so that almost every wild species of animal on the planet is in danger of extinction (I cannot believe I would see the day that FROGS or HONEYBEES would be threatened, but they are), and in my lifetime alone the population of lions in Africa has dwindled from 150,000 to something like 20,000….we stupid Americans still discuss birth control like controlling our numbers is an option–all because of this archaic mentality that we must continue producing as many babies as possible to populate pews in churches. Never-mind that every day thousands of people–little children too–die of exposure and starvation, never-mind how many unwanted babies end up in foster care, live their entire childhoods feeling unwanted, and very often end up in their adult lives living in jail off the money of taxpayers, or mentally ill, or committing terrible crimes.

The other day I saw a bill-board in Seattle. I didn’t get a good look at it but it seemed to be encouraging some product or medication that increases the likelihood of having TWINS. The ad read “Because TWO are more fun!” or something like that. Are you kidding me???

President Obama has not cleaned up the mess completely no, and he has not been a perfect president, no.  He came in with very little experience.  But he has done some good and I really think he would have done more good had the left tried to meet him halfway across the aisle he tried to reach across.   I also have not seen President Obama caught in one lie after another, like I have seen all during Mitt Romney’s campaign.

One thing I know for sure, President Obama is not threatening to take away a woman’s right to have a say over whether she wants to have a baby or not. I think anyone who does threaten that right is a sick bastard on the level of the KKK and no I would not want a KKK member running this country either.

Nor is President Obama standing in the way of a whole group of people, tax paying citizens in this country, getting to finally enjoy the same rights and privileges as as any other tax paying citizen in this country. It is absurd that in a secular nation that has separation of church and state–or is SUPPOSED TO–that some people can be denied the right to marry (even by a justice of the peace!), because some religion says so. That’s bullshit. Sorry, but the CHURCH should have no authority over what free citizens of this country do with their lives, so long as it does not break any laws or hurt anyone.

No, I’m not gay.  I don’t think a person has to be gay to believe in or want human rights for ALL.

Advertisements

Pregnant Two Weeks Before Conception??????

Isn’t this just wonderful?   Let’s see.  If they can pass some kind of law that says a woman may be pregnant at any given time during her childbearing years, what restrictions will women suddenly have to face?  Or would it become a criminal offense for a woman to do anything that might jeopardize the fetus she may or may not be carrying?

Let’s see…   (since we know they don’t have a crystal ball they can’t know two weeks before when a woman conceives because we never know exactly when we’ll conceive, and so…at all times there would be possible things women in their childbearing years might suddenly not be allowed to do just in case they might be pregnant:

Drink alcohol

Drink coffee or caffeinated beverages like tea or pop

Swim in lakes

Swim in the ocean

Swim in rivers

Swim in public pools

Go into any really cold water or really hot water (no hot tubs)

Have sex

Go on amusement rides

Ride horses

Ride bicycles, scooters or motorcycles

Ride in a car (if the car crashes it could hurt her fetus)

Ride on an airplane or on a train or in a boat (same reason as above)

Eat anything that isn’t soft (to reduce chances of choking)

Work (stress can hurt a fetus)

Receive blood transfusions

Go into any non-sterile environment

Eat junk food

Take any drugs that may possibly be harmful to the possible fetus she may or may not have…

Clean cat litter boxes

Use tampons (possible contamination risk of fetus)

Be given anesthesia or anesthetic that might cause adverse physical reaction

Raise or be around birds

Play sports

Run or jog

Engage in any strenuous or risky behavior that may potentially threaten a fetus that may or may not exist.

 

(Wow…now isn’t that special?  I just can’t wait for the Religious Right fanatics to take over!)

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/04/01/arizona-legislators-trying-to-declare-pregnancy-two-weeks-prior-to-conception

The past few months, we’ve seen the nation wake up to many anti-choice assaults on women’s basic right to control their fertility, especially with regards to imposing forced ultrasounds and numerous attacks on access to basic contraception. But one of the other favorite anti-choice approaches to maximizing the pain and suffering of women as punishment for sex has largely gone unnoticed by many outside of the pro-choice activist community: bans on abortions after 20 weeks. It’s understandable that it’s hard to whip people up about this particular situation. After all, abortions after 20 weeks are relatively rare. Only 1.5% of abortions occur after the 20th week, and the vast majority of those that do occur are done for medical reasons, or because legal and financial obstacles–like those put in place by lawmakers–caused a delay. While, if they knew their personal stories, most people would certainly sympathize with women in need of post-20 week abortions, a certain amount of reproductive rights fatigue is setting in. There’s only so many hours in the day, and anti-choicers know if they just keep throwing restrictions on access at us, some will slip through the cracks. But, as exhausting as it is, we need to pay attention to and resist post-20 week bans on abortion. That’s because it’s cruel on its surface, but also because legislators are using 20 week bans in order to smuggle in other items of more importance to them than simply making it harder for a slim minority of women seeking abortions to get them. The most obvious thing they’re trying to do is set anti-science precedent. Since these bans are based on the false, unscientific claim that fetuses at 20 weeks can feel pain, if they’re allowed to stand, it opens the door for more laws based on straight-up lies to be passed. These laws are also being used to challenge the requirement set out in Roe v Wade that a woman’s health and life should trump that of the misogynist desire to keep her pregnant at all costs. Legislators have had so much success smuggling in ulterior motives with 20-week bans that they’re now looking for ways to expand the amount of hard right anti-choice nonsense they can attach to those bills. The most recent—and extreme—example is Arizona. There, lawmakers are writing a 20-week abortion ban that starts counting off at the first day of a woman’s period. Yes, they’re arguing that you’re “pregnant” while you’re actually getting your period. In fact, as Kate Sheppard at Mother Jones explains, they’re really trying to steal as many weeks as possible away from women seeking abortion: Most women ovulate about 14 or 15 days after their period starts, and women can usually get pregnant from sexual intercourse that occured anywhere between five days before ovulation and a day after it. Arizona’s law would start the clock at a woman’s last period—which means, in practice, that the law prohibits abortion later than 18 weeks after a woman actually becomes pregnant. That’s bad in and of itself, but taking a step back and looking at the big picture makes this law look even more sinister. Medically speaking, pregnancy starts when a fertilized egg implants in the uterine lining. Anti-choicers have attempted to define it earlier with their failed attempts to pass “personhood” law that would define not just pregnancy, but “personhood” as beginning at conception. Now in Arizona, they’re trying to argue that you’re pregnant a couple of weeks before you even had the sex that resulted in your pregnancy. Think about the implications down the road. If a woman is “pregnant” two weeks before she becomes pregnant, than any fertile woman—including those currently menstruating!—should really be considered pregnant. After all, we don’t know the future. We don’t know that any non-pregnant woman couldn’t be pregnant two weeks from now, making her retroactively pregnant now. Considering that it’s anti-choice nuts we’re talking about, it’s safe to assume that they’d simply prefer a situation where all women of reproductive age are considered to be pregnant, on the grounds that they could be two weeks from now. Better safe than sorry, especially if that mentality means you get to exert maximum control over the bodies of women of reproductive age. Between personhood bills and the assault on access to contraception, it’s becoming increasingly clear that anti-choicers aren’t satisfied with simply trying to control the already-pregnant. Finding ways to define the not-pregnant as pregnant is a means of laying the groundwork for exerting this control. Imagine if Roe is overturned and states go into a true frenzy of stripping every imaginable right away from pregnant women. It wouldn’t be limited to stripping the right to abortion, but also to any kind of behavior deemed “abortive,” including holding certain kinds of jobs, eating certain foods, or taking certain medications. With this bill, then, you could not only restrict the rights of those who are actually pregnant, but extend the restrictions to all women of reproductive age on the grounds that they “could be pregnant in two weeks, i.e. in perpetuity” and would therefore be considered the same thing as being pregnant. Already in some states, they’re looking for ways to prosecute women who have stillbirths if they did something the prosecutor believes may have had an impact on the pregnancy, such as drug use. With the hoped-for overturn of Roe, we can expect these efforts to intensify, with prosecutions of miscarriages. Now with this Arizona bill, if a woman is deemed pregnant two weeks before she actually is, prosecutors could even have a chance to look at your choices when you weren’t even pregnant—before you even had the sex that made you pregnant—and blame those choices for bad outcomes. They’re creating, brick by brick, the legal basis on which to prosecute a woman who drinks some alcohol, becomes pregnant two weeks later, and miscarries, even though she didn’t drink while pregnant. And you best believe that when feminists protest this, they’ll just paint it as if we’re more interested in protecting drunken sluts than “babies.” If you can be “pregnant” without being pregnant, that also creates legal complications around simple menstruation. After all, menstruation is usually seen as the opposite of being pregnant; women use menstruation to mark that they aren’t pregnant. But under this bill, you could both be menstruating and “pregnant” by law. Should Roe be overturned and the state start looking to prosecute women for miscarriages they deem inappropriately prevented, what about women who are just getting their period? They’re “pregnant” under the pregnant-prior-to-conception framework, aren’t they? Are they miscarrying in the eyes of the law or are they just continuing their theoretical pregnancy? These kinds of ambiguities are exactly the sort of thing zealous misogynist law enforcement will be looking to exploit.