Do you want the government to track your periods and judge you based on the length of time your uterus can hold a very sacred fetus? Would you like to be referred to a totally not-a-whole-bunch-of-doctors crisis group telling you how to just stay pregnant until you pop....something out, regardless of your whole ability to raise or care for a baby, and also deal with whatever the physical/emotional, and/or-financial state you are in when you do give forth your sprog?Today, I’m proud to introduce the More Opportunities for Moms to Succeed (MOMS) Act along with @SenMarcoRubio, @SenKevinCramer, and a group of @SenateGOP colleagues.
— Senator Katie Boyd Britt (@SenKatieBritt) May 9, 2024
You can learn more here: https://t.co/L1mZmoYoQ5 pic.twitter.com/kAmX2Up7Yr
If that is the incredibly weird and uncomfortable level of government/religious oversight of your very personal business you would deeply prefer not to have--please vote Democrat, thank you.
OK, I have more to say about this:
Crisis pregnancy centers straight-up should not exist. They just exploit pregnant people. They do not actually preform any kind of reasonable "help". A pregnant person's medical choices should be between them and their doctor. These agencies, like Senator Britt, use the guise of "helping" to just make pregnant people think they are obligated to carry out a pregnancy for whatever reason. But their zealotry can get people killed due to "believing" horrific statements of faith like "medical abortions are never necessary" that have nothing to do with the medical realities of pregnancy.
It boggles my mind that Sen. Britt, every bit as physically female as myself and even more on the frontlines of a reproductive war having dropped offspring which I never bothered to do and being more physically likely to continue to be able to do so, doesn't grasp the profound imposition she is proposing. It has never sat right with me that religious fervor can make people sit in judgment over people whose plight they could understand full well, but who they need to punish not for being wrong--but for existing as the real-world rebuke to their worldview.
Sen. Britt vibrates with the fervor of the religious wrong, seemingly excited by the prospect of there being a federal government "uterus boss." I can barely fathom what makes any woman think anyone should be womb boss. I am 51 years old and my period is weeks late. Stress? Perimenopause? There is no boss of any of this having a uterus thing. She wants to propose a department of regulating being female and I like women sometimes and never wanted babies and I don't want people like me to ever be regulated. Because we will be regulated to death.
In states where extreme abortion bills have been enacted, woman are already dying. Why is she supporting this happening to our sisters? I have to believe she doesn't care about women who aren't her. And this is so disqualifying for making laws for the rest of us. And I am so sad for her that she seems so oblivious that we are out here and that she could get to know our concerns and even be responsive to them, but she is too indoctrinated to even recognize us long enough to despise us--I sincerely have reason to suppose.
I want female-bodied people to have children they choose and to be able to make medical decisions for themselves and their offspring in every event. I do not think our elected officials should condescend to us and think it's great to appoint government minders over our fertility. There is something very scary about this woman and how the GOP promotes her.
Everything about this worldview is harmful and invasive.
UPDATE: Just a quick disclaimer; although I'm being obtuse in the comments below, the simple reason I don't use trans-exclusionary language is because my feminism is not trans-exclusionary. I just wrote this blog post about how I think body policing is dangerous and people should be able to get the best care for themselves. Reading that, how I feel about language-policing on my blog related to gender should be pretty clear.
7 comments:
There is another term for “female-bodied people”.
D.A>, you have a good vocabulary and I love that for you. I do too and use my words as a writer to say the things I actually mean. People with uteruses are people first and foremost and making choices for other people based on your judgments of their anatomy isn't helping them, it can kill them. Thanks for reading!
Women of child-bearing age would be accurate and to the point. I
Oh. Some, but not all people. Got you. Have a nice day!
Thank you Vixen, for yet another well-written piece, as well as the warning that this bill exists.
funny how the only things the gop wants to regulate are women and thinking.
If you want to play word games that’s one thing, but saying that women of child-bearing age who can sustain a pregnancy are at risk is so obvious that I don’t know who would find this offensive, or who it doesn’t cover that it should.
Post a Comment