Dawn Laguens, executive vice president at the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, alerts women about Brett Kavanaugh :

“Kavanaugh referred to birth control ― something more than 95 percent of women use in their lifetime ― as an ‘abortion-inducing drug,’ which is not just flat-out wrong, but is anti-woman, anti-science propaganda,” Laguens told HuffPost. “Women have every reason to believe their health and their lives are at stake.”

“Let me break it down for you, Brett,” she went on. “Birth control is basic health care. Birth control allows women to plan their futures, participate in the economy, and ― for some women with health issues like endometriosis ― allows them to get through the day.”

Bob Bland, co-president of the Women’s March, called Kavanaugh’s potential ascent to the Supreme Court “an emergency, all-hands-on-deck moment for women across America.”

We know Brett Kavanaugh is against abortion, and now we know he thinks birth control is abortion,” Bland said Thursday. [emphasis mine]

image source,

(Image is Nicanora Montenegro, not Dawn Laguens)

Views: 48

Replies to This Discussion

This is what we get when our government is dominated by men who can't be bothered to consider women's everyday needs or wants. Whatever happened to empathy?

In general, men don't have to worry about getting pregnant. That's our natural, God-given privilege! :-) :-) :-)

One state legislator's response in 2016 to abortion restrictions:

Kentucky Lawmaker Introduced Bill Requiring Men to Get Wives’ Permission to Take Viagra (Snopes)

(Rep. Mary Lou Marzian's bill would have also required men to be legally married, visit a doctor twice on separate days before getting the prescription, and literally swear on a Bible that they'd use the drug only to have sex with their current spouse. Unsurprisingly, the bill never made it out of committee.)

How come you've got a government full of bigots?

More like a government of mostly privileged white men ... which is pretty much the same thing.

And Kavanaugh lied in talking about Roe v. Wade as "settled law" he'd respect. Newly released email from 2003 shows him talking about how the Supreme Court "can always overrule its precedent, and three current Justices on the Court would do so."

Kavanaugh in leaked email: Roe can be overturned (Joan McCarter, Daily Kos, Sep. 6)\

Related: I read a suggestion someplace that a useful way to refer to pro-choice and anti-choice advocates is pro-family-planning and anti-family-planning. It doesn't provoke the same snap judgments as other terms; it doesn't directly open a window to the false equivalence of zygotes/​embryos/​fetuses and actual, living, breathing, thinking, feeling children, and it recognizes the broader truth that many opponents of abortion rights also tend to oppose any autonomy in disconnecting male-female sex from making babies. (There's a reason reliable birth control was one of the the triumphs of the 20th century.)

Speaking of that false equivalence so often implied (or explicitly stated!) by anti-family-planning, pro-forced-birth arguments, I'll repost this. (Feel free to share!)

[picture of acorn] “This is an oak tree.” [picture of acorn] “This is an oak tree.” [picture of acorn] “This is an oak tree.” Repeating “alternative facts” doesn’t make them true.

From 314action.org

Women have the right to plan their pregnancies, to decide against having children, to choose a career outside the home, to a safe and legal abortion. Women don't have to ask for permission to exercise these rights. 

You know that, I know that, we know that... but far too many legislators and judges want to push us back into the dark ages!

Being "full and equal partners in society" includes having the choice to have sex with or without making babies. So often we don't talk about that explicitly. Maybe it's time. How do we reaffirm and spread the idea that sex for pleasure, between or among consenting partners, is a moral and a good thing (and need not be connected with reproduction)?

That also relates to remediating homophobia/biphobia/transphobia and heterosexism, as well as misogyny. As John Corvino put it (in "What's Morally Wrong with Homosexuality?"):

"Suppose I told you that I'm imagining an activity that takes place between consenting adults, doesn't hurt anyone, and results in a great deal of pleasure for the people involved, and that's all you know... Given that information, sounds pretty good! Suppose I fill in the picture a bit more, and tell you that not only does it result in pleasure for the people involved, but it's an avenue of communication and a source of deep meaning in their lives, and again that's all you know... given that information, it sounds great, [the] kind of thing we'd want to encourage. But of course when I fill in the picture a bit more, and tell you the adults in question are two men or two women, and the activity is some kind of sexual activity, suddenly people are not so keen on it anymore... some would call it a moral abomination."

(Ellipses mine. And even when the adults in question are a woman and a man, there are still far too many people who condemn most kinds of sexual activity in most circumstances!)

RSS

About

line

Update Your Membership :

Membership

line

Nexus on Social Media:

© 2018   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service