#further restrictions on bodily autonomy

[spr0utsies]

"dont vote for the fascist" the red one or the blue one?

the one that wants to completely overturn the democratic system idk. think with your fucking brain lol this is not the “gotcha” you think it is. i fucking hate joe biden but i also don’t want republicans to start project 2025 and make my existence illegal 👍

#i hate anti-vote people thinking theyre doing something #all ur doing by refusing to vote is saying ur ok with trump winning and for the maga ‘reforms’ the gop wants to put in place #like the concentration camps and mass deportation they want to start for latino and muslim immigrants #further restrictions on bodily autonomy #go actually read project 2025 and tell me that both parties are equally bad #i fucking hate joe biden but if you think we are living under fascism now you’re objectively incorrect

[whiplashrogue]

So, to catch up those of you on here, myself and @redclegane, @Red_Clegane on twitter, have been collabing on a project we're calling: Bodily Autonomy. A Hybrid AU involving the 141 boys, centering around SoapGhost and GazPrice.

This project currently contains some art done by me, which I'll post here soon - Fics done by both myself and Red, and there's some art by Red too! We're a lot more active on Twitter (Whiplash_Rogue), so you can find us there for further fun and shenanigans, but I'll be posting stuff here too!

Part 1 of Bodily Autonomy:

[Restricted Access]

NOTE: The files you are about to read contain sensitive medical information in regards to the genetic modification of Human Enhancement Division subjects. This information is not to be disclosed as per the terms and conditions of the HED-UN Public Disclosure Agreement, and may be restricted.

****************** Medical Documents following the hybridisation of the individuals known as the 141 by the Human Enhancement Division.

by Red_Clegane

#cod mw2 #ghostsoap #simon “ghost” riley #john soap mactavish #cod men #soapghost #fandom #fanfic #pricegaz #gazprice #hybridau #this au has me in a chokehold #lives rent free #im really proud of it go check it out

[rapeculturerealities]

Abortion Medication Mifepristone Had a Supreme Court Win With Alito Dissent | The Mary Sue

Good news for everyone who loves bodily autonomy: The Supreme Court actually picked the right side for once. That’s right, they decided to keep full access to the abortion medication mifepristone on the market in the United States by rejecting a lower court’s restriction on the drug while an appeal on the case works its way through the court system, which will inevitably end up back in the Supreme Court. (More on that in a second.) Frankly, I’m surprised, mainly at the breakdown of votes because it was a 7–2 decision, and I think we can all guess who the two who were against it were.

Here’s Alito’s dissent, if you want a laugh. Cry about it, you hateful man. Boo hoo. Per ABC News:

Alito’s dissent said the administration and manufacturer “are not entitled to a stay because they have not shown that they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the interim.”

His tantrum also included a line whining about the Biden administration not honoring a ruling that denied access to the drug. Per AP News:

Alito questioned the argument that chaos would result, saying the administration “has not dispelled doubts that it would even obey an unfavorable order in these cases.”

Oh, OK. So you strip away the autonomy of at least half the country last summer and that’s not good enough for you. Now you want to come for more of our rights, and you’re whining in your dissent that the President (who by the by was elected by the people, unlike you, Alito) might not honor your unelected, unwarranted, un-legally sound opinion? Cool.

Alito is legitimately throwing a tantrum here in front of the entire world, simply because he doesn’t get to further punish people for seeking autonomy over their bodies. It’s bonkers.

#Alito #Abortion #reproductive rights #mifepristone #Supreme Court

[tuurverheydepoetryandprose]

There's something so NIMBY-ish and pathetic about the ostensibly liberal 'gender critical' set. Of all the things you could do with your finite existence, you've chosen to harass a group of people who just want to live as themselves.

And you don't even have the guts to openly state you're on the side of reactionaries who want to restrict bodily autonomy and bring gender and sexuality back to the fifties. Instead, you have to play this pseudo-feminist game of claiming to protect women and girls, but whenever actual policy is brought up...

the mask slips every single time: restricting bodily autonomy, eugenicist language and strategies, catering to conversion therapy ghouls... You just can't help it. Full on fascists and neocons are openly thanking you for furthering their anti-feminist, anti-liberal agenda and still you're standing there, head held high, self-proclaimed saviour of women.

Some of these folk are fine with being the gate-way to full on fascism, but some of them are still trapped in the belief they are liberal and I wish they would just drop it.

No one who is this willing to demonise a group of people for their identity will stop at that. Fix your heart or openly join the fascist scum you've been propping up. This charade has gone on for long enough.

#cass review #terfism #trans rights

[amitheasshole-unofficial]

Welcome to AmIthe Asshole, tumblr edition

The aim of this blog is to provide an alternative to using reddit for those who don't want to use it but still would wish to utilise it in some form. Here, it will work similar to the subreddit, albeit with a few tweaks.

Please be aware, this is NOT an official blog or monitored by the mods for the actual r/amitheasshole subreddit. Any inquires to do with the actual subreddit should be brought to them.

Here is the code for those responding to posts, either through reblogs or comments:

YTA = You're the asshole

YWBTA = You would be the asshole

NTA = Not the asshole

YWNBTA = You would not be the asshole

ESH = Everyone sucks here

NAH = No assholes here

INFO = Not enough info

How to submit and rules are below the cut.

How to submit:

Go to the top of the blog, you should see a little envelope icon on mobile or three dots for website. Click on this and an option should come up to start writing your submission. For general ease and consistency, it would be preferred to stick to the format of the reddit posts, with a large bold header proclaiming the main question and then detailing the situation underneath. For example:

AITA for telling someone to eat dirt?

So I was walking to the store by myself, when someone came up to me and etc...

For tags, please include #aita and any other tags you deem relevant, such as #family, #friendships and so on.

Rules:

The same rules from the subreddit apply, which are listed down below (albeit with some reddit-only ones, like upvote rules, removed):

Be civil

Accept your judgement

Never delete an active discussion

No violence

Post interpersonal conflicts

No shitposts

Do not ask for advice

Updates and META posts are restricted

No partings/relationship/sex/ bodily autonomy

This blog is not for debate

No revenge stories

No medical conflicts

If you want further details, the subreddit explains these rules more precisely. It may be that in the future I'll copy those descriptions down too for a separate pinned post, so look out for that first.

There are some extra rules regarding tumblr. For one, you don't have to give your thoughts on a post if your reblogging it, it may be just to spread awareness to the post. However, if a post has recieved multiple reblogs with no reply, it is better not to reblog unless you are adding to the conversation.

Second, please do not harass anyone in these posts. If you believe someone is at risk of harm to themselves or others in any way, they should reported to tumblr staff appropriately.

That should be all for now. If you have any questions or requests that are not AITA submissions, please do send an ask. It can be anything from getting help for submissions to suggesting edits to the rules.

Thank you for reading!

#reddit #r/196 #aita #do reblog to let others know about this

[aronarchy]

thing i drafted in response to someone before i realized i’d misread their post. still want to keep it so just posting it here instead. also put out some useful things i remembering wanting to b able 2 reference a while ago but never got to it properly @ the time

--

directed, roughly, @ people in “cluster B abuse” discussions who on the surface seem open to our suggestions of picking a different name for their subcategories of abuse-types, but when interrogated still hold the same underlying beliefs (that the cause of the abuse is some neuro/mental function, some internal trait(s)/thoughts/feelings, even if it doesn’t carry the name “npd” or “aspd” or “bpd” or “hpd”). especially those who utilize this to claim they are only going after abusers with “narcissism the Internal Personality Trait (but not in a disorder-way) [still in a bullshit pop-psychology way],” as opposed to “actual narcissistic personality disorder the Actual Mental Illness.” synthesis of various frustrating convos i’ve had over the past few years.

--

the problem is that you are trying to categorize types of abuse based on what Type Of Person the abuser Fundamentally “Is” in the first place, i.e. trying to draw lines based on neurotype, or any other internal trait. there is no utility to labelings of abuse as “narcissistic” (or “sociopathic,” or “borderline,” or “autistic,” or “depressive,” or “[insert other identity trait here]”), apart from utility to abusers and oppressors who wish to uphold systems of oppression so that they can more easily get away with abuse, claiming their personal lack of marginalized traits as absolution, and our marginalizations as guilt markers.

the difference between abuse a neurodivergent or mentally ill person perpetrates and abuse a neurotypical mentally healthy person perpetrates is that ND/MI people also experience systematic violence and abuse from an ableist, saneist society and relative disadvantages, so that on average (in total) they would be significantly less likely to abuse or be able to abuse, and if they do happen to abuse it will usually be of someone with less social power than themself, i.e. other ND/MI people with further vulnerabilities, and they will still have a harder time getting away with it, because of the relative lack of power compared to an NT/mentally healthy person i.e. targeting from psychiatry, restrictions of autonomy, demonization. this is hyper-specific, not particularly helpful when making first broad categorizations, and obviously not what any of you are looking for when asking these.

the ones usually recommended right now for broad sweeping categories are the general names denoting what the abuse itself looks like: i.e. physical abuse, sexual abuse, vs purely emotional/psychological abuse. different abuses with different cause: abuse via direct state authoritarian power (i.e. police brutality, prison), vs abuse via smaller offshoots of it (when individual bosses or landlords weaponize their power over you, or other capitalists, etc). or specific institutions & their resulting power differentials (parental abuse: “this abuse was caused by the institution of the nuclear family”; psych abuse: “this abuse was caused by the institution of psychiatry,” etc). can even specify types of beliefs which motivated the abuser (i.e. “this abuser abused bc of his misogynistic beliefs,” “that abuser abused because of their ableist beliefs,” etc). or that the abuse happened on a smaller scale than the total overwhelming violence of things more like the above, more a 1:1/interpersonal type thing, and stopping it requires more of certain community processes than, i.e., direct violence.

different types of abuse have different causes! for example, many approximate “forms” of sexual abuse today are caused by the phenomenon known as “rape culture,” whereas many forms of nonsexual physical abuse today would be caused by other cultural influences, a slightly more general belief in consent violations and overriding bodily autonomy/boundaries. but it’s important to note that these, while different on the surface, are still at their core the same phenomenon (entitlement, power/control, authoritarian structures, widespread hierarchical beliefs) just taking different specific forms.

different types of abuse often need to be dealt with differently! for example, i’m sure it’s obvious that abuse from [entity who has total legal & economic power over you which is near-impossible to challenge at all] requires fairly different interventions than abuse from [entity much closer in power to you]. also note that nowhere in the above is there any such “well we need phrenology to figure out what exactly is wrong with the abuser’s brain so we know whether to lock them in a psych ward or a prison cell or just kill them to fix them problem,” these are obviously not reliable measures bc many people of varying neurotypes will commit the same abusive acts influenced by the same belief systems enabled by the same structural factors and while of course everyone’s brain type will alter the nuances of how & why they do things so does every other different trait they have and singling out mental illness is very disingenuous & ableist.

your plan for “stopping abuse” should not be “identifying people by the Type Of Brain they have so we can lock them up (or forcibly therapize them or whatever ‘softer’ equivalent you’d prefer) in advance.”

#OP #iris drafts things #iris rambles

[omegawizardposting]

A reminder that transmascs can be forced to detransition in order to gain access to abortions, even in states where abortion is viewed as a constitutional right. In states where it is not, we can be raped and forced to detransition for the health of the baby.

This is what we're talking about when we say "transandrophobia". This is a form of oppression unique to us. You absolutely cannot deny that only AFAB trans folk, and transmascs especially, are affected by laws restricting access to abortions, and that the medical discrimination we face when we seek abortions is also unique to us.

For there to be so much push-back against transmascs speaking up so soon after the overturning of Roe v. Wade is not coincidental. This is radfem rhetoric. This is baeddel rhetoric. Y'all have fallen for rhetoric that actively endangers transmascs by silencing us and downplaying our oppression, again.

Here are some other forms of oppression that transmascs face, which are not unique to us, but tend to fall into discussions of transandrophobia:

AFAB trans folk have the highest SA rates of any trans demographic.

Transmascs have the highest attempted suicide rates of any trans demographic.

Corrective rape is a major concern for transmascs, even more so now that our access to abortions has been further restricted or altogether eliminated in some parts of the country.

Trans MoC experience all the same racism as cis MoC, including aggression and brutality from the police.

These are important topics to discuss, and transmascs, esp. transmascs of color, have been trying to have these discussions for years. It is more important now than ever to have them, and we are being shouted down at every turn, even as our bodily autonomy is being stripped from us.

Pull your head out of the discourse swamp and stand with your trans siblings.

[immortalmuses]

Thoughts on Red, White, & Royal Blue (contains spoilers)

         I finished RWRB the other night and I am... still feeling it like an ache under my skin. As sweet as Alex and Henry are together, regardless of how their enduring relationship gives me warm fuzzies, it wasn't the happily ever after at the book's end that reached down into my chest and pressed on my heart like a fresh bruise.

         I was not expecting Casey to so accurately capture this feeling that I have carried inside me. It comes from being a child of Texas, raised (like so many are) to consider that as a core part of my identity, as much as being of mixed heritage and not conforming to society's sexual or gender norms. It comes from growing into adulthood only to realize that a place you have loved and respected your whole life... doesn't want you. Would rather you die than be your real, authentic self.

         In RWRB, Texas rallies for a mixed race Latinx kid that's been outed as bisexual in the messiest way possible. It turns Blue to elect his mother, a female president with a blended family and progressive policies. I cannot stress to you how much that was... the absolute fantasy pipe-dream that I genuinely thought could have been a reality way back in 2016. As Texans, we stood on the precipice of making the world a better place, of making history. We had every opportunity, between Beto and Hilary and a newly awakened generation of young voters that had seen the good works of an Obama presidency. We came So Close...

         But look at Texas now. Further away than ever from that fictional future. More cruel, more restrictive. Denying women bodily autonomy, denying children gender affirming care, restricting access to voting rights, disproportionately punishing the poor, shoving people back into the fucking Rio Grande to Drown rather than allow them to seek asylum within our borders. Texas has fallen so fast and so far from that moment of potential, I don't know that it can ever recover.

         A year and a half ago, I left Texas. I packed up my life and moved elsewhere because I was heartbroken at what my home-state had become, because I didn't feel safe there anymore, because I saw myself as powerless to do anything about the injustices being paraded throughout the state like they were points of pride. And I miss it, and I hate it, and I'll probably never go back.

         But I can't slough off that part of who I am, I can't banish it to the past like it never mattered, like being a Texan didn't shape me in some ways. I guess reading Casey's words reminded me that even with healing and distance, some part of me will always be that child of Texas, one who wishes they got even a fraction of the political happy ending that Alex Claremont-Diaz got.

#rwrb spoilers #Fandom: Red White & Royal Blue #c: Alex Claremont Diaz #ooc #choosing violence | ooc #spirit reads rwrb #yeah it was me crying over the book's election results and having visceral PTSD flashbacks to how utterly awful that night in 2016 was #Alex's internal monologue about Texas is why I feel I have to write him now...

[gondwana]

the internet spreads misinformation, especially when it comes to women’s innocence (or persecution). we are mutuals and i’m a feminist., what they call these days a “terf” used to be “witch”. i am not transphobic, that’s more misinformation about what feminists believe… i’m not saying this to upset or attack you, just to inform you that there are many people who still want to silence feminists / women in generals voices. what they call a “terf”/“witch” does NOT believe that women are weak/incubators - that’s a very conservative/“republican” (im not american but i think thats comparable) ideal, bioessentialism, which is as far away from feminism as you can possibly get… feminism, and radical feminism, are about liberating and empowering women - every woman has the right to bodily autonomy. Every so-called”terf” agrees on this with you, whilst every conservative misogynist disagrees- they believe in the “role” of a woman being that of a mother and nothing else, etc.. Anyway, i just wanted to share since we are mutuals and i think misinformation is not a good thing . Peace and love to you <3

the problem with trans exclusionary radical feminism is not the radical feminism part it's the trans exclusionary part. I have absolutely zero beef with the aggressive and endless pursuit of women's autonomy. what I have beef with the idea that "women's autonomy" does not include the right for trans women to be safe and not aggressively questioned or ostracized.

of course I have overlaps in my beliefs w terfs. that doesn't make me uncomfortable or confuse me, and it doesn't make me question being very very trans exclusive when it comes to my philosophy about feminism.

also, in terms of misinformation, there is a LOT of misinformation that gets spread around terf circles on Tumblr. like, there's a whole masterpost of alleged crimes done by trans women, and they all link to like, extremely republican/alt right websites, or the link is broken and goes nowhere. and I've read those articles, and they're uncited, or the sources are deleted. it's all fucking fake. trans women being the enemy is so fake. a trans man being some sort of tragic loss of a butch woman is so fake. young feminist women are being brainwashed, because the world is a nightmare, and they're scared, and terfs tell them that biology is to blame.

like, the only Work that terfs have really been able to Get Done has been the oppression of trans people, like with all of these bills being passed thru u.s state governments restricting care for transgender youth. that does nothing for the advancement of feminism. that does not make women safer. women are not living in a world that is getting better. and it's like, these terfs celebrate these fucked up bills in order to feel better about the fact that things are not getting better for women. in fact, if roe v wade is repealed, things will be much much much worse. I think it's a nightmare. i cannot imagine someone else's oppression being further enshrined in our institution being treated like a consolation prize for the fact that women, cis and trans alike, are still treated like shit everywhere.

idk why you are defending terfs. I don't think there is anything there for you in their philosophy. i don't think that they're the modern equivalent of witches. witches were like, women with property that the government wanted to steal. not women on twitter sending death threats to trans women.

this message has been very long. I genuinely don't understand why you're trying to defend the term terf. I do not find confrontational feminism a problem. I find it necessary. but like, terf rhetoric is bioessentialist at it's core. it is what defines it. it is of the opinion that "maleness" is the "opposite" of "femaleness" and that being amab is evil and bad and violent and, in reverse, that women are good and virtuous and victimized. there are a million ways to be amab. a million ways to be afab. a million ways to react to male/female socialization. sex needs to stop mattering if we're ever going to get anywhere, and making sex-segregated rules about bathrooms/sports etc, and restricting people's access to hormones is like, NOT how to do that. and that's what being a terf is to me. it IS about controlling people's bodies. it IS about transphobia. it exists because regular ass radical tear misogyny out by the roots feminism wasn't trans exclusive enough . lol.

anyway,

[queersatanic]

The Satanic Temple cannot help you get an abortion, and it does not deserve your support

Legal opinions from the article:

In an email to Lead Stories on May 11, 2022, Ric Simmons, the Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer Professor at the Moritz College of Law at Ohio State University, wrote that RFRA would not likely be a substantial enough claim:

Laws that ban or restrict abortion apply indiscriminately to everyone, so there would be no religious exemption to them under the first amendment, and it would be difficult to argue that obeying the law would create a substantial burden to exercising their religion (it may, of course, impose a substantial burden on women generally, but that is not RFRA's test).

[Mark Tushnet, the William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Law emeritus at Harvard Law School] wrote in detail to explain the full complexity of this issue

1. If the new member holds the beliefs associated with the Satanic Temple sincerely, and not opportunistically, she would be able to claim​ protection under the federal RFRA for actions against her by the federal government (not at all likely under current statutes because there aren't many federal statutes regulating those who have abortions) and under state RFRAs where they exist (in about 20 states, I believe, but of course, you should check). 2. A sincere belief would trigger RFRA protections but that doesn't mean that the action would in fact be protected. All RFRAs allow the government to override the religious belief for compelling reasons, and governments would certainly argue that protecting what they regard as human life is a compelling reason. I'm reasonably confident that the governments would prevail on that ground -- so, in the end, I think it unlikely that joining the Satanic Temple would actually provide protection against prosecution for having an abortion. 3. In addition, the point in #1 about "sincerity" is important. Courts have been reluctant to find that a litigant isn't sincere in asserting her religious beliefs, but everyone's aware of the fact that the more personal benefit you get from the claim, the more likely it is that you're not sincere in asserting what your beliefs are. I think there's a decent change that many judges would find that people who joined the Satanic Temple recently and didn't do anything else weren't sincere -- but again that might vary depending on what each individual member actually does.

Samuel D. Brunson, the Georgia Reithal professor at the Loyola University Chicago School of Law, wrote in an email on May 11, 2022, that he's "pretty sure that the Satanic Temple is positioning itself to challenge anti-abortion legislation in various states."

The federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, as well as most (if not all) state-level RFRAs don't say that the government cannot infringe on a person's free exercise rights under any circumstance at all. Rather, they say that to infringe on an individual's religious practice, the government must have a compelling governmental interest and the law it enacts must be the least restrictive means of furthering that interest. Is it possible that a member of the Satanic Temple can successfully challenge laws against abortion based on a religious belief in bodily autonomy? Yes, it is possible. But I suspect that the state would have the better argument. As much as we want an easy, costless way to deal with potential anti-abortion laws in a post-Roe world, something that seems easy and slick and too cute by half is probably not going to work. Protecting a woman's right to choose is, rather, going to require us to do the hard work of demonstrating, writing to representatives, and voting for people (at the federal and state levels) who will ensure that that right is protected. the Satanic Temple's approach is clever. And it highlights a real inconsistency among people who insist both on untrammeled religious liberty and prohibitions on abortion. But joining the Satanic Temple is unlikely to allow an individual in, for instance, Texas or Louisiana ignore state abortion bans.

More:

#The Satanic Temple #fact check #abortion #abortion rights #satanic abortion ritual #satanic temple #TST

[lyssafreyguy]

"i understand their decision to not give minors horomones. but i hope you get access to the medical care you need." oh you "understand" the transphobic government restricting childrens' voices and autonomy when it comes to their bodies as a foot in the door of furthering control of the bodily medical autonomy of literally everyone by going after the oppressed first do you? 😒

#PLEASE jump a bridge. lmfao

[theivorybilledwoodpecker]

Domestic violence is a public health issue. Last year in Pennsylvania, 112 individuals died as a result of domestic violence incidents. Thousands of reports are made annually, but most incidents are not reported. Victims endure mental, emotional and physical abuse. These traumas can result in long lasting chronic health conditions including depression, substance use disorder, sexually transmitted diseases, and more. You might wonder why victims don’t just leave the abuser? It’s harder than you think. Many victims feel trapped by fear for their safety or the safety of their children or family. Many are controlled financially and emotionally by being isolated from family and friends or other supports, or denied access to money or other resources. Some abusers use reproductive coercion to maintain power in the relationship by sabotaging their contraception methods or pressuring them into pregnancy. These acts of partner coercion and domestic violence can lead victims into unwanted or unhealthy pregnancies. Did you know that individuals in an abusive relationship have increased risks of unintended pregnancy and are more likely to need abortion services? Unintended pregnancies can also create additional financial hardships that make it harder to access abortions, which can trap women in violent relationships during pregnancy — a time when abuse often escalates. According to the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence, the increased risks are even greater for Black pregnant people or those under 20 years old. People with unintended pregnancies are also two to four times more likely to experience physical violence than those with planned pregnancies. As an OBGYN physician for many years, I know that pregnancy can be a risky undertaking. An individual risks health outcomes that may be long lasting and include death. Many barriers to care already exist, and access to reproductive services should not be another barrier to preserving health or escaping and finding freedom. Any further restrictions preventing someone from accessing the full range of reproductive care could harm a person’s bodily autonomy and overall health. Bans on abortions and forced pregnancy can be dangerous to maternal health and may increase chances of mothers dying during or after pregnancy. States which have more restrictive abortion laws were shown to have higher rates of maternal mortality than states that either had protective or neutral positions towards abortion. Every loss is tragic, and we continue to build supports and strengthen the resources available to prevent the occurrence of maternity mortality in Pennsylvania. I want to ensure all Pennsylvanians know that, as of now, reproductive health care services, including abortions, remain safe and legal in Pennsylvania. The Wolf administration is committed to protecting Pennsylvania’s vulnerable populations at all times, including those victims and survivors who are affected by domestic violence. Following the U.S. Supreme Court ruling dismantling Roe v. Wade, Governor Wolf has taken executive action to ensure in-state and out-of-state residents, like victims of domestic violence, can seek reproductive health care services without fear of discipline and prosecution. Let’s not let pregnancy mortality be another unintended consequence for victims of domestic violence. Please know that if you are currently experiencing domestic violence, there is hope. You can contact the National Domestic Violence Hotline 24 hours a day, 7 days a week at 1-800-799-7233. There are people ready to listen and, in Pennsylvania, you have access to the full range of reproductive healthcare services.

#Denise Johnson #Domestic Violence #Abuse #Abortion

[canichangemyblogname]

An in-depth look at the drafted Court Opinion for Dobbs v. Jackson.

The first thing I want to stress is that this is a DRAFT. Abortion still remains legal in most places in the US and this opinion may be subject to change. That being said, don't hold your breath. The Supreme Court IS preparing to overturn Roe and pave the way for the criminalization of abortion.

Below is an analysis of the first 30 pages of the opinion, and three more posts like this will be to follow (attached to this one):

This is... surprising because Casey did define what an "undue burden" is. This is a standard that says that a legislature cannot make a particular law that is too burdensome or restrictive of one's fundamental rights. They are suggesting that the "undue burden" language in constitutional jurisprudence is too vague. This standard has been used in cases upholding voter registration laws, affirmative action, and marriage rights.

If the "undue burden" standard is too vague, that leaves other unenumerated rights that have been reaffirmed via this standard vulnerable to also being overturned.

The 14th amendment's Due Process clause guarantees some rights (called unenumerated rights) not explicitly stated in the Constitution. Substantive Due process is the notion that due process protects certain legal procedures as well as certain rights unrelated to procedure, asking "What does the government have a vested interest in regulating?" Noneconomic Substantive Due Process serves as the basis for some of the most significant Constitutional holdings in our life.

I am looking at the line that states:

"...rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution... must be 'deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition' and 'implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.'"

I have previously thought this to be flimsy jurisprudence exactly because most of the rights we enjoy today are not deeply rooted in this nation's history and legal traditions, including, but not limited to:

Federal protection of individual rights at the state level. States did not have to acknowledge constitutional rights as those were specifically Federal and not state protections, until the 14th amendment, that is. Although, this opinion reaffirms the extension of Federal rights at the State level.

Gay marriage and interracial marriage, as these have historically been criminalized, just like abortion.

Sodomy and sexual privacy, which has been historically criminalized.

Contraceptives, which have also historically been criminalized.

The basis of most rights we acknowledge today would thus be that any such right must be "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty." However, liberty has been variously defined by the court, meaning there is not really a uniform understanding of what is included in Liberty in constitutional jurisprudence. What rights are "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty" is subject to varying interpretations.

Is the right for gay people to marry a liberty? I know that you know people, even Supreme Court Justices, who would say, "No."

In a country that continues to roll back voting rights through the Courts and disenfranchise its citizens through arbitrary restrictions (like the ones recently passed in Texas and Georgia) and gerrymandering, this is incredibly narrow sighted. The American people do not have the power or ability to choose the officials who decide their laws. They simply cannot vote for people who would affirm the right to bodily autonomy.

This is (partially) medically incorrect, if I'm not mistaken. I would like to know if @ficsnooneaskedfor would be able to elaborate further on this given their professional backgrounds.

UPDATE: You can see @ficsnooneaskedfor set the record straight here:

https://ficsnooneaskedfor.tumblr.com/post/683284868069818368/thank-you-so-much-for-breaking-this-down-i

Where she talks about how the timing for such a procedure is correct, the language is sensational, and it would be incorrect to say the procedure is dangerous.

They are reaffirming the extension of Federal rights at the State level, but are questioning the rights we enjoy that are not explicitly stated in the Constitution.

There are several fundamental human rights, acknowledged by the likes of the UN declaration, that are not- explicitly stated in our constitution, including, but not limited to:

"No one shall be subject to arbitrary interference with [their] privacy, family, home..."

"Everyone has the right to freedom of movement."

"[Everyone] of full age [has] the right to marry."

"Everyone has the right of equal access to public service."

"Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favorable conditions..."

"Everyone has the right to rest and leisure..."

"Everyone has a right to education."

A lot of the human rights listed above were recognized under the Substantive Due Process Clause of the 14th amendment, but they are not explicitly stated in the Constitution. Our Constitution was primarily intended to lay out processes, not rights.

It doesn't matter what rights Americans believe they should enjoy, it's not protected because it's not explicitly stated in the constitution.

Until the later part of the 20th century, there was no support in American law for most of the rights we enjoy today, including most Civil Rights and many of our equal opportunities in employment and education.

Unfortunately, the court has a history of not clearly delineating abstract rights. For example, the rather strict protections for marital privacy established under the likes of Griswold did not extend to a challenge to a Georgia Sodomy law, at least at first.

Obergefell ruled that fundamental rights do not "come from ancient sources alone" and that they should be viewed in light of evolving social norms. This decision calls that into question.

It is not uncommon to use English Common Law in Supreme Court jurisprudence, especially at the start of the Nation's court and whenever we run into questions without precedent.

Common Law was used in Roe's decision to make abortion a right. It is now being used to justify Roe being overturned. They're arguing that Common Law did not protect abortion.

It still seems arbitrarily antiquated that need to use 13th and 17th century law in their opinions. It really sounds like they're saying: "Abortion was not a right recognized under common law, because it was actually a crime in the 13th century-19th century, so it cannot be a fundamental right now."

You know what was also a crime then? Getting married without your Feudal Lord's permission.

They go on to talk about how abortion was punishable in pre-colonial America, setting up the case that Abortion is not "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition," including our inherited Common Law tradition, and thus is not a fundamental right.

They also keep referring to fetuses as "potential life" and "unborn human," referencing common law that refers to fetuses as "person[s] in being," and mentioning how early anti-abortion laws and court decisions were backed by the sincere belief that a fetus is a "human being." I believe they're establishing precedent for a potential case for fetal personhood down the line.

They also keep talking about the "severe historical punishments" for abortion. In this opinion, it's used to establish how abortion was not a right under common law and thus Roe was decided with faulty jurisprudence, but this opinion could also be used as later precedent for the legal punishment of abortion, should someone bring a challenge to abortion punishment before the court.

#reproductive justice #Dobbs v. Jackson #abortion #pro-life #pro-choice #I am not a legal expert #keep that in mind #if you read through this

[eggcorn-acorn]

why are you reblogging anti-transition propaganda by a crypto-terf after reblogging a bunch of transition timelines?????

So…in short, I made a mistake and didn’t do my research on that crypto-terf account. I looked further into the account and saw what their views were, immediately blocked them, and deleted that post.

I reblogged it initially because I originally resonated with some of what they said with HRT: it’s something to think about and the effects of it go beyond than me and my body. Transitioning is an individual choice and shouldn’t be restricted just because of people’s fears of regret. Transitioning also will change how one looks and feels and will affect other people, and people can be scared of that change. These thoughts can coexist.

However, reviewing the post again, I realized the language used was not to comfort my insecurities (perhaps others’) with transitioning but to instead restrict transitioning and reduce trans people’s bodily autonomy.

Appreciate you reaching out and I’ll do better.

[ifalltopiecessbitch]

"Abortion: Is a Woman a Person" by Ellen Willis delves into the controversy surrounding abortion in the United States. The essay explores the perspectives of both pro-life and pro-choice arguments, shedding light on why the issue remains highly contentious.

The pro-life argument, as presented in Willis' essay, centers on the belief that a fetus is a person with a right to life. Pro-life advocates contend that life begins at conception, and terminating a pregnancy is equivalent to taking an innocent human life. They emphasize the moral and ethical implications of abortion, viewing it as morally wrong and a violation of the sanctity of life. Pro-life supporters often advocate for legal restrictions on abortion and prioritize the protection of the unborn.

On the other hand, the pro-choice argument, also discussed in Willis' essay, advocates for a woman's autonomy and right to make decisions about her own body. Pro-choice supporters argue that a woman has the right to control her reproductive choices, including the decision to terminate a pregnancy. They emphasize the importance of reproductive rights, bodily autonomy, and the right to privacy. Pro-choice advocates believe that access to safe and legal abortions is crucial for women's health, well-being, and equality.

The controversy arises from the clash of these opposing viewpoints. The pro-life argument is rooted in the belief that an unborn fetus should be protected and afforded the same rights as any other human being. It draws upon moral, religious, and philosophical beliefs regarding the value of life and the sanctity of human existence.

In contrast, the pro-choice argument focuses on the woman's right to make decisions regarding her own body and reproductive health. It highlights the importance of considering the woman's circumstances, well-being, and the complexities of pregnancy. Pro-choice advocates argue that limiting access to abortion infringes upon women's rights, disproportionately affects marginalized communities, and can lead to unsafe and illegal procedures.

The controversy surrounding abortion in the United States stems from these deeply held beliefs and conflicting values. Perspectives on personhood, the moral status of the fetus, and the balance between individual rights and societal concerns contribute to the ongoing debate. The complexity of the issue is further heightened by legal, political, social, and cultural factors, making it a deeply divisive topic in American society.