mistressofmuses (
mistressofmuses) wrote2022-05-04 09:12 pm
Entry tags:
Enjoy some parenthetical anger
Okay yeah, my political thoughts boil down to:
Fuck every single person who claimed we (in general) or I (in particular) were overreacting to things (elections, appointments of judges, etc.) by thinking that we would wind up exactly where we are right now. (Including the people who meant it as a comforting thing: "relax, I know you're worried, but no one will EVER succeed in going after Roe v. Wade. It's codified law, it's not going away.")
And additionally fuck every eyerolling shit coming in on every post about this by claiming we're now overreacting for being concerned about Griswold or Lawrence or Obergefell (or Loving or Brown, for that matter.) I realize there's a line in the opinion about how this alone isn't supposed to be precedent for other decisions... except that if the Roe "decision" rides on the idea that "this isn't explicitly named in the constitution and also isn't firmly rooted in the history of the nation" (to paraphrase), then all of those decisions could ALSO face challenges based on the same "logic."
(Not that it is logical. These were supreme court cases in part BECAUSE they weren't "rooted in history." If they had been "rooted in history", they wouldn't have been problems that required judicial action to solve.)
Loving and Brown probably aren't as likely to face immediate challenges. But give it a few years and a few more openly white supremacist lawmakers, and it really DOESN'T sound impossible that those could get shoved into the same "well, it should really be up to the states, shouldn't it?" category.
In terms of Roe v. Wade, I'm "lucky". I'm in a state with additional protections (though ones that are still whim to changing political landscapes that could be overturned if the winds shift.) I am in a relationship with someone who also doesn't want kids, and we don't do much that could result in an oops anyway.
Not everyone I know and care about is so lucky.
But even if a pregnancy would be physically safe for me (which is not guaranteed), it would not be mentally or emotionally healthy. I am 100% genuinely serious when I say I would rather die than be pregnant, and if those, through horrid circumstance, become my only choices? Well.
Fuck every single person who claimed we (in general) or I (in particular) were overreacting to things (elections, appointments of judges, etc.) by thinking that we would wind up exactly where we are right now. (Including the people who meant it as a comforting thing: "relax, I know you're worried, but no one will EVER succeed in going after Roe v. Wade. It's codified law, it's not going away.")
And additionally fuck every eyerolling shit coming in on every post about this by claiming we're now overreacting for being concerned about Griswold or Lawrence or Obergefell (or Loving or Brown, for that matter.) I realize there's a line in the opinion about how this alone isn't supposed to be precedent for other decisions... except that if the Roe "decision" rides on the idea that "this isn't explicitly named in the constitution and also isn't firmly rooted in the history of the nation" (to paraphrase), then all of those decisions could ALSO face challenges based on the same "logic."
(Not that it is logical. These were supreme court cases in part BECAUSE they weren't "rooted in history." If they had been "rooted in history", they wouldn't have been problems that required judicial action to solve.)
Loving and Brown probably aren't as likely to face immediate challenges. But give it a few years and a few more openly white supremacist lawmakers, and it really DOESN'T sound impossible that those could get shoved into the same "well, it should really be up to the states, shouldn't it?" category.
In terms of Roe v. Wade, I'm "lucky". I'm in a state with additional protections (though ones that are still whim to changing political landscapes that could be overturned if the winds shift.) I am in a relationship with someone who also doesn't want kids, and we don't do much that could result in an oops anyway.
Not everyone I know and care about is so lucky.
But even if a pregnancy would be physically safe for me (which is not guaranteed), it would not be mentally or emotionally healthy. I am 100% genuinely serious when I say I would rather die than be pregnant, and if those, through horrid circumstance, become my only choices? Well.

no subject
I just heard someone on my radio station this morning (they do a round table discussion that I listen to) say both A) if people believed Kavanaugh (I think they were talking about him) when he said Roe vs Wade was 'settled doctrine' (or whatever the term is) in the hearings, well then . . . As if we all got what we deserved because we believed him. Someone else on the panel called him out and was like, so it's okay to just lie in the hearings now?!! and B) that he read the decision and no one was going after gay marriage . . . And I was like, buddy, we can see the writing on the freaking wall. Of course he was one of the few conservatives they have on the panel, but even so I couldn't believe what I was hearing. Talk about naive. Or just wanting people to settle down so the conservatives can keep on keeping on.
*deep breath*
no subject
Ugh, that guy on the panel would have pissed me off! Like... okay, yes, I think a lot of people did expect that Kavanaugh was lying, but that doesn't change the fact that lying in the hearings is a problem! But also... justices aren't voted on by the people (and for good reason, if the system was even remotely functional, blah blah), so... it doesn't matter if "we" believed him or not. Either way, we weren't voting for him! In a different world where it was up to popular or electoral vote, then lying to get the votes needed would still be more wrong than trusting that a fucking soon-to-be *JUDGE* IN THE *HIGHEST COURT OF THE NATION* WOULD BE TRUTHFUL DURING A HEARING.
And yeah, there's a lot of pushback on the idea that there's reason to be concerned about other "settled" cases like Lawrence and Obergefell... but with the "don't say gay" shit in Florida, and the continuing attacks on trans youth (and adults), and multiple legislators saying that they think the Obergefell decision was wrong... the foundation for those rulings being dramatically chipped away by overturning Roe is very real and means those could be under very real threat.
*many deep breaths*
no subject
I've seen doctors (ok, a male chiropractor -- so a witch doctor) post that "you'd think intelligent women who don't want children would just take birth control". And there lies the problem - the underlying misogyny combined with just plain lack of education.
But sure, let's worry about perceived CRT in math books.
And this is coming from a male. I can't imagine what it is like to be a woman of childbearing age in the US now.
no subject
I have Jewish friends, non-evangelical Christian friends, pagan friends of varying stripes, my own agnostic-atheist self, who ALL find this decision counter to our beliefs and what's right. But those religions/lack-there-of do not matter. It's increasingly obvious, and it baffles me that there are people who can still say "but, freedom of religion..." with a straight face.
Ah, chiropractors, lol. But yes, I see that attitude a lot, and it just... displays such a lack of understanding of the issue. Yeah, birth control is great. Doesn't help when that's a right that could easily also go away under the same "reasoning" as Roe v Wade. Or when some state laws that would go into effect class anything "preventing implantation" as an abortion, meaning birth control could also become illegal in some places. Or when 99% effective methods of birth control fail. Or when it's a *wanted* pregnancy that has something go wrong. Or the fact that birth control can have extremely negative side effects for some people. Or, or, or, or.
But yes, they're sneaking CRT into our math textbooks, and some kids might learn that being non-straight or non-cis is okay and doesn't mean there's something wrong with them. The horror.
I appreciate that you care. (Genuinely.) It's pretty scary, honestly, made worse by how many people *don't* care.
no subject
no subject
Plenty of people roll their eyes at this being alarmist, but those really aren't rhetorical questions.
It also doesn't seem all that alarmist to be genuinely concerned about rulings like Lawrence v. Texas, and suddenly "what happens in the bedroom" is no longer a private matter for consenting adults.