An (im?)modest proposal for resistance.

[Jirel]

A friend’s righteous rant sparked this as a point of organizing resistance:

Revoke (or do not sign) organ donor cards, and instruct next of kin/medical POAs to not donate your organs after death.

(I hear the cries of knee-jerk outrage already.) Look, it’s simple. Women are going to die because of these abortion bans. Do not let their organs be harvested to save their murderers. Women will suffer, become disabled, lose their livelihoods, lose their opportunities for education or a career, or die because abortions are denied them, when they are unable to access abortion care hundreds of miles away. Ok, then, I guess organ transplantation should require medical tourism as well.

Nothing in this scheme says that a person should not live-donate a kidney, etc. to a person they know and trust. It just means that women and their allies are drying up the flow of organs to strangers who may be their oppressors. It means that women and their allies are taking back control over their bodies. Will people die? Yes. That’s the point. What, did you think this war wasn’t going to have casualties? Besides the piled corpses of pregnant women? Decisions have consequences, and it is time for women to be fighting back ruthlessly.

After all, nobody is interested in even ending the filibuster for us, or expanding SCOTUS for us. Why, exactly, should we continue business as usual?

[SharonClark]

1. You may be overthinking this because it

sounds ineffective and serious silly.

[emulatorloo]

2. One has nothing to do with the other. How about this? Protest and register voters and get them to

the polls to vote in more Democrats to Congress.

[Jirel]

6. Good gods.

Like we’ve done EVERY election cycle, and yet we got Trump, a radical fascist SCOTUS, state GOP candidates ready to steal an election the moment they win, more extreme gerrymandering, worse voter disenfranchisement than ever, and still no chance of either enlarging SCOTUS, killing the filibuster, or otherwise turning things around in the near OR far term? You do know that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, and expecting different results, right?

As for “nothing to do with each other,” that is false. Women’s lives have been taken hostage. Women can also take lives hostage. Business as usual and the expected urging to place nice and be civil are OVER as viable strategies.

[emulatorloo]

8. Hey Republicans vote every damn time there is an election. Thats how we got this SCOTUS

It will take a Dem majority to make progress, that means getting new voters and all our voters to the polls EVERY DAMN TiME.

[Effete Snob]

9. None of which has anything to do with this notion

...that not donating organs relationship to the problem.

Saying "doing X doesn't help" doesn't render every goofy idea to be effective.

[Texasgal]

3. Ridiculous.

[brooklynite]

4. "Do not let their organs be harvested to save their murderers."

Do I need to explain how incredibly narrow-minded that is?

Or should I just assume you were ranting and skip over?

[Effete Snob]

12. What's weird is...

...even if you accept the logic of the proposal, then making abortion illegal will completely eliminate the supply of organs from women who would have otherwise died from pregnancy complications.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

5. lol what

[H2O Man]

7. Yikes!

That is even more radical than giving up one's subscription to The Saturday Evening Post, or boycotting "Laugh In." I'm not sure people are that prepared for all-out revolution.

[denbot]

10. Wow thanks for dumming down, a dummied downed response..

Sheeese

[Effete Snob]

11. Stop giving to food banks, too

Because someone benefiting from the food might be anti-choice.

Also, stop exhaling, so that your emitted carbon dioxide won't be used by plants to grow and produce food for people who are anti-choice.

"It just means that women and their allies are drying up the flow of organs to strangers who may be their oppressors."

So, wait a minute, the idea here is that there are currently people who are not getting organs because there aren't as many women dying from complications of pregnancy.

The basis of your idea is that if the number of women dying from complications of pregnancy is increased, then there might be an increase in donated organs.

Therefore, you want to reduce the number of women donating organs.

It should be obvious that, even if your assumptions and logic are correct, then the excess deaths from pregnancy complications that would have otherwise resulted in abortions is still going to result in an increased number of donor organs, unless you get 100% compliance (which is not obtainable).

But I sincerely doubt anyone is going to be saying "Hey, we have to make abortion legal, so that women who don't have abortions will donate their organs!"

Because making abortion legal to women who would have otherwise died in pregnancy and refused to donate their organs, would be a MORE effective method of reducing the number of donor organs from women who die in pregnancy because they can't get an abortion.

[asiliveandbreathe]

13. Keep trolling the scotus liars with impeachment....lying to congress...

AOC has it right...at least debate the issue...and