Home > Politics > State GOP Bills Insist on Invading Womens Privacy If They Have Sex!

State GOP Bills Insist on Invading Womens Privacy If They Have Sex!

March 17, 2011

What is up with Republicans? They have become mean spirited and are crossing all kinds of personal boundaries, in particular women’s. The new attacks by Republicans on women is quite appalling. It is arcane and it is dangerous. Here are a couple stories that actually caught me off guard but worth sharing. Both appear on Alternet.org. I will not be moving to Georgia, Iowa, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota,

First story excerpt:

GOP War On Women, If You Have Sex Republicans Want to Pry Into Your Business

With a recent surge in unprecedented attacks on reproductive rights—federal assaults on women’s right to use private funding for abortion and the House attempting to defund Planned Parenthood—it certainly seems like it’s high season for misogyny. In the woman-hating clamor, one story has risen to the top: a Georgia state state legislator (Republican, of course) has introduced a bill that would treat every miscarriage like a crime scene requiring a police intervention to clear the miscarrying woman of criminal intent, or even of potential negligence.

The bill, which is a variation of Rep. Bobby Franklin’s annual attempt to pass a law banning abortion, grabs attention by distilling so perfectly the panties-sniffing sensibilities of the anti-choice movement. In Franklin’s perfect world, every woman who miscarries or even menstruates forsakes her right not to have law enforcement digging through her private business, just looking for an excuse to throw her in jail. Luckily, Franklin’s miscarriage bill has little chance of passing, but many other state legislatures are considering viable bills that echo the same belief that women forsake the right to basic privacy the second they make the choice to have sex.

South Dakota made headlines recently when Republicans brought forth a bill that was written in such a way that it could have legalized murdering abortion providers. Legislators pulled the bill after it was met with a wave of negative attention. What’s received less attention is a more viable bill requiring women who want abortions to get “counseling” at crisis pregnancy centers first. In other words, in order to get an abortion, you must first meet with a bunch of religious fanatics who are organized for the purpose of hating female sexuality and answer all their intrusive questions about your sex life. Then and only then will you get to have an abortion.

Second Story excerpt

Woman Arrested for Thinking About Abortion

Last month, legislators in South Dakota introduced a bill that was worded in such a way that it could allow for the legalized murder of abortion providers. Under a firestorm of controversy, the bill was withdrawn, but similar bills have also been introduced in Nebraska and Iowa.

Legislators who introduce these bills invariably claim they aren’t encouraging terrorism or trying to infringe on the right to abortion, which is protected by the Supreme Court under Roe v. Wade. In fact, the argument for these kinds of laws is that they’re about protecting pregnant women from violent assault. The sponsor of the South Dakota bill, Phil Jensen, laughably announced that his bill was about giving pregnant women the right to fend off attackers, even though pregnant women–like all citizens of South Dakota–already enjoy a broad right to self-defense in that state. More likely, this proposed bill, along with a broader one in Nebraska and Iowa, would work both to subtly encourage terrorism and establish a potential defense for those who kill abortion doctors.

Categories: Politics Tags:
%d bloggers like this: