First off, this isn't a post about abortion. It's about how the personhood movement is dangerous even if you take abortion out of the debate. According to my friend Liz,
Jessica Valenti cites several examples in her column in the Washington Post, including this one:
More than 55% of voters in Mississippi yesterday rejected the state’s ‘personhood’ initiative—a development that certainly bodes well for reproductive rights in this country, and gives me a little more hope about our collective sanity, as well.What interested me about this issue (aside from the fact that I possess a uterus), was the way some of the groups fighting the Mississippi amendment were approaching the issue. The group Parents against MS 26 pointed out that the personhood movement, "has far-reaching effects on infertility treatment, contraception, and women's physical health."
Jessica Valenti cites several examples in her column in the Washington Post, including this one:
In 1996, when Laura Pemberton in Florida refused a recommended C-section because she did not want surgery, the sheriff and the state’s attorney went to her house while she was in labor and took her to a hospital, where a lawyer had been appointed for her fetus. (Pemberton was not given representation.) According to Pemberton and legal documents, she was subsequently forced to undergo the C-section against her will.Sarah Brown from the National Campaign to prevent Teen and unplanned pregnancy posed a common question: "Isn’t it clear and obvious that contraception is preferable to abortion?" I think she's giving these people too much credit. Anyone who has read up on right wing religious extremists knows that they actually do think contraception is just as bad.
Comments