September 30, 2021

         "forbids banning abortions on the basis of a baby’s race, sex, or disability,"

          They left out "eye color." They could call this the "legalized eugenics bill."

House Democrats vote to codify Roe v. Wade, legalize abortion on demand

The bill forbids states from subjecting abortion to ultrasound requirements, mandatory waiting periods, informed-consent requirements, and other health and safety rules.

Driven by fears that the Supreme Court may be on the verge of overturning the landmark pro-abortion ruling Roe v. Wade, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 218-211 Friday to pass legislation that would enshrine abortion on demand in federal law. 

In December, the nation’s highest court will begin hearing oral arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which concerns Mississippi’s HB 1510 law banning abortions from being committed past 15 weeks for any reason other than physical medical emergencies or severe fetal abnormalities. Abortion defenders argue it violates the judicially-created “right” to pre-viability abortions; pro-lifers hope the case will finally lead to the reversal of Roe.

In May, House Democrats reintroduced the so-called Women’s Health Protection Act (WHPA), purportedly to prepare for such a future, though it would go much further than granting the tenets of Roe statutory legitimacy.

The legislation, which has been repeatedly introduced over the past several years without being acted upon, establishes a federal statutory right to perform and obtain abortions, including after fetal viability (under the broad cover of “health”), and specifically forbids states from subjecting abortion to ultrasound requirements, mandatory waiting periods, informed-consent requirements, and other health and safety regulations, such as admitting privileges.

The WHPA also protects so-called “webcam” abortions (i.e., dispensing abortion pills without an in-person doctor’s visit), forbids banning abortions on the basis of a baby’s race, sex, or disability, and forbids banning particular techniques such as dilation and evacuation (D&E) procedures, better known as “dismemberment” abortions because they entail literally ripping unborn babies apart in the womb, then removing them from the uterus limb by limb.

~~~~~~~~~~

That means that, for now, the future of abortion law remains in the Supreme Court’s hands. Many pro-lifers see the upcoming Mississippi case as the greatest test yet of the current justices, a majority of whom were appointed by Republican presidents yet have still disappointed pro-lifers and conservatives on various occasions. 

Only Justice Clarence Thomas is explicitly on the record as anti-Roe, and only he and Justice Samuel Alito have established consistently conservative records over a significant period of time. 

From Recent History - July 25, 2021

       "The Vagina Museum doesn't want women to have to be reminded of the fact that they are women."

https://thepostmillennial.com/vagina-museum-womens-health

Vagina Museum seeks to erase women's health from public discourse

The Vagina Museum would have women's health again regulated to the dustbin of the undiscussable.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Vagina Museum, which is likely targeted to women, tells women that the use of the word "woman" is not acceptable, because some people who are female but believe they are men, will find the language upsetting. The Vagina Museum doesn't want women to have to be reminded of the fact that they are women.

To that end, they write that women should use much less specific terms to describe their bodies, women's health, and women-specific products.

"Instead of 'sanitary products', say 'menstrual products';" "Instead of 'feminine hygiene products', say 'period products';" "Instead of 'becoming a woman', say 'starting puberty'."

"Instead of 'women's health', say 'reproductive health' or 'gynaecological health' (whatever you prefer);" "Instead of 'women and girls', say 'people who menstruate' or 'people who have periods'."

What would prompt the Vagina Museum to instruct women to rewrite the language they use about their own bodies and experiences? Is there something wrong with the concept of the "feminine"? Is there something abhorrent about "becoming a woman"?

The Museum says that they want to remove shame from womanhood, but instead, in creating language that obfuscates femaleness and female bodies, they are adding shame. They are also creating confusion.

It has been decades of hard-fought activism by women to get the concept and practice women's health to the public square. Yet the Vagina Museum wants to rephrase that to say "reproductive health" or "gynecological health" as opposed to "women's health." The Vagina Museum believes that the only sort of health differences between men and women are in the realm of reproduction, but this is entirely false.

Women's health concerns differ from those of men in many, significant ways. Cardiovascular health is one key area where male bodies and women's bodies differ. The signs of a male heart attack or stroke are different from women's. Cancer concerns and risks are different, as is the area of bone health. These are just a few differences that, if women opted instead for the term "reproductive health" would be entirely missed.