Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

babylonsister

babylonsister's Journal
babylonsister's Journal
May 7, 2022

The stuff of nightmares --

The stuff of nightmares --
Copied from Debra Porta. The stuff of nightmares --

"Justice Alito's invocation of Sir Matthew Hale in his leaked majority opinion is so, so much more fucked up than people realize. I'm a professor with a PhD, and my area of expertise happens to be women and gender in the early modern era (1500-1700). Here is what you need to know.

Matthew Hale, just like a lot of Christian extremists today, believed that women were made from Adam's rib. God did not make her as an autonomous being with rights. She was a physical extension of his body, made to be his "helpmeet," namely to exist to help him to whatever he wants.

Hale therefore wrote in his posthumously published book Historia Placitorum Coronæ (1713) that marital rape was totally legal. In fact, because a man owned a woman's body as it was an extension of his own to do with whatever he willed, he was incapable of marital rape.

The logic was that you can't rape something that isn't considered an independent human being. Your wife's body is yours and you can't rape yourself. This is the logic Alito is upholding when he invokes Matthew Hale. But it gets worse.

Let's say a woman vocalized her opinion and it ran contrary to her husband's. She didn't want sex. Hale believed that this put her in violation of her marital vows. She was literally breaking the law. Women who denied men sex needed to be punished.

There was a whole set of laws at the time specifically on the punishment of women who spoke up against the men in their lives. They didn't have the legal authority to say no to sex because they were not legally independent human beings.

Keep in mind that Hale and others also viewed a father's role in a similar way. The daughter had no bodily autonomy, & it was a father's duty to "correct" his children as long as he did so within the law. Daughters were groomed from an early age to be obedient to future husbands.

It should be no surprise that Hale was responsible for the trial and execution of women for witchcraft and that his legal opinion would be used as a base for the execution of women and children by the state both in England and the Americas.

The big witch trial Hale was known for was the 1662 trial of Rose Cullender and Amy Duny. It followed many of the trial conventions of the day with bonkers stories of toads, vomiting pins, etc. Both women were widows and found guilty.

Women who were executed by the state for witchcraft were overwhelmingly poor and single. Most were widows. Hale & his contemporaries found independent women to be a serious threat in society. She was not owned by father or husband, which meant that she was an unnatural presence.

Women without a man to tightly control their behaviors were viewed as extremely susceptible to immorality and becoming a Satanic force in the community. Hale believed it was in society's best interest for men of the state to step in and control these women.

A woman's primary purpose in adulthood was to be married, be obedient to a man, & to have children. Alito invoking Hale in his opinion made it clear that he also thinks this too. It's his duty as a man to put the bodily fate of women in the hands of states run by white men.

Keep in mind that Hale was only talking about white Christian women. Women who didn't fall into this category were debated as even being women. They were viewed as less than human with even less rights. The rule of thumb didn't apply; they weren't worthy of such restraint.

Are you starting to see why Alito's invocation of Hale is so deeply, deeply fucked up on so many insane levels that there isn't a way to possibly overreact to how shitty his legal standing is here? Rage, horror, disgust, etc. are not deep enough reactions to his legal opinion.

And if you think Hale being invoked by Alito was something out of left field, think again. Hale is all over our legal system. The easiest application to find was the Salem Witch Trials, but his influence on our laws is much more insidious than that. Marital rape was not completely outlawed in the United States until 1993.

When Alito talks about going back to what the founding fathers meant, he is talking about all of this shit. Women's bodies being legally owned and controlled by men. He knows many Christian white women are groomed theologically to agree and will vote for this patriarchal control.

Alito knows that by kicking reproductive control back to the states that he is putting an incredible amount of power in the hands of the men who control these communities. He knows that white men are disproportionately in charge of these places.

Alito knows how much power and influence local churches have on local leadership. He knows most of these institutions are controlled by men. He is counting on it. He knows the biggest threat to women are the men in their homes and communities.

Justice Alito and men like him do not see women as independent human beings with their own human rights. They see us as incapable of making our own decisions. They consider men to be divinely appointed to rule over women.

This is not an exaggeration. If they think of white Christian women this way, imagine what they think about women of color, women of non-Christian groups, or trans women and men. The utter disdain towards them is deep, disturbing, incomprehensible, and violent
.



— @Literature_Lady"
May 7, 2022

The Rude Pundit: Men Are Mostly Responsible for the End of Roe, So Fuck Up Their World, Too

https://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2022/05/men-are-mostly-responsible-for-end-of.html


The Rude Pundit
Proudly lowering the level of political discourse
5/06/2022
Men Are Mostly Responsible for the End of Roe, So Fuck Up Their World, Too

snip//

Despite the failure of Polsky's amendment, this is the kind of shit that Democrats should be introducing and emphasizing. The vast majority of women don't get pregnant without men involved (leaving out sperm donors, who are generally anonymous). So while working to get anti-abortion laws overturned or to get a majority in the state legislature or Congress to make abortion rights legal everywhere, use the bullshit against men. Come up with savage child support laws. For instance, in most states, a parent needs to be behind by a certain amount before wage garnishment and other collection methods are introduced. Lower that number to $0. That's right. You miss one payment and fuck you. Suspend your passport and your driving privileges. Take money from you wherever you get it. Taxes, lotteries, your grandma, whatever. And fucking jail you if you still don't pay up after one missed payment. Call it the "Men Make Babies, Too" Act.

Let's also add that if you're a rapist who impregnates a victim and you're in jail and you happen to live in one of the states where your family can sue to stop your victim from aborting your fucking baby, write a bill that makes that family responsible for the cost of the child from pregnancy until 18 years old. Call it "Love Your Son's Rape Baby" law or something. Then you can say, "Oh, you don't love your rapist son's rape baby enough to pay for it?"

Is that fair? Well, it's not fucking fair to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term and force her to give birth and force her to face all the medical problems and bodily changes that accompany pregnancy and birth while your male ass goes about your life. So, yeah, it's more than fucking fair.

And it shouldn't need to be said, but I guess it does. While what they might go through with the end of Roe is infinitesimal compared to women's forced childbearing, in states that outlaw abortion, it's gonna make the lives of forced fathers miserable, too. Whether it's through child support laws or through changing their lives and their futures around a child they never wanted to have, men's lives in Alabama, in Idaho, in Texas, in Missouri are gonna get fucked up.

But you know who's to blame for that? Mostly other goddamn men.
May 7, 2022

'Enforced childbirth is slavery': Margaret Atwood on the right to abortion


‘Enforced childbirth is slavery’: Margaret Atwood on the right to abortion
The US supreme court draft ruling on abortion is an assault on fundamental individual freedoms. The Handmaid’s Tale author reflects on the issues at stake
Margaret Atwood
‘What kind of country do you want to live in?’ … Margaret Atwood
Sat 7 May 2022 02.00 EDT


Nobody likes abortion, even when safe and legal. It’s not what any woman would choose for a happy time on Saturday night. But nobody likes women bleeding to death on the bathroom floor from illegal abortions either. What to do?

Perhaps a different way of approaching the question would be to ask: What kind of country do you want to live in? One in which every individual is free to make decisions concerning his or her health and body, or one in which half the population is free and the other half is enslaved?

Women who cannot make their own decisions about whether or not to have babies are enslaved because the state claims ownership of their bodies and the right to dictate the use to which their bodies must be put. The only similar circumstance for men is conscription into an army. In both cases there is risk to the individual’s life, but an army conscript is at least provided with food, clothing, and lodging. Even criminals in prisons have a right to those things. If the state is mandating enforced childbirth, why should it not pay for prenatal care, for the birth itself, for postnatal care, and – for babies who are not sold off to richer families – for the cost of bringing up the child?

And if the state is very fond of babies, why not honour the women who have the most babies by respecting them and lifting them out of poverty? If women are providing a needed service to the state – albeit against their wills – surely they should be paid for their labour. If the goal is more babies, I am sure many women would oblige if properly recompensed. Otherwise, they are inclined to follow the natural law: placental mammals will abort in the face of resource scarcity.

But I doubt that the state is willing to go so far as to provide the needed resources. Instead, it just wants to reinforce the usual cheap trick: force women to have babies, and then make them pay. And pay. And pay. As I said, slavery.

more...

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/may/07/enforced-childbirth-is-slavery-margaret-atwood-on-the-right-to-abortion
May 7, 2022

The stuff of nightmares --

Copied from Debra Porta. The stuff of nightmares --

"Justice Alito's invocation of Sir Matthew Hale in his leaked majority opinion is so, so much more fucked up than people realize. I'm a professor with a PhD, and my area of expertise happens to be women and gender in the early modern era (1500-1700). Here is what you need to know.

Matthew Hale, just like a lot of Christian extremists today, believed that women were made from Adam's rib. God did not make her as an autonomous being with rights. She was a physical extension of his body, made to be his "helpmeet," namely to exist to help him to whatever he wants.

Hale therefore wrote in his posthumously published book Historia Placitorum Coronæ (1713) that marital rape was totally legal. In fact, because a man owned a woman's body as it was an extension of his own to do with whatever he willed, he was incapable of marital rape.

The logic was that you can't rape something that isn't considered an independent human being. Your wife's body is yours and you can't rape yourself. This is the logic Alito is upholding when he invokes Matthew Hale. But it gets worse.

Let's say a woman vocalized her opinion and it ran contrary to her husband's. She didn't want sex. Hale believed that this put her in violation of her marital vows. She was literally breaking the law. Women who denied men sex needed to be punished.

There was a whole set of laws at the time specifically on the punishment of women who spoke up against the men in their lives. They didn't have the legal authority to say no to sex because they were not legally independent human beings.

Keep in mind that Hale and others also viewed a father's role in a similar way. The daughter had no bodily autonomy, & it was a father's duty to "correct" his children as long as he did so within the law. Daughters were groomed from an early age to be obedient to future husbands.

It should be no surprise that Hale was responsible for the trial and execution of women for witchcraft and that his legal opinion would be used as a base for the execution of women and children by the state both in England and the Americas.

The big witch trial Hale was known for was the 1662 trial of Rose Cullender and Amy Duny. It followed many of the trial conventions of the day with bonkers stories of toads, vomiting pins, etc. Both women were widows and found guilty.

Women who were executed by the state for witchcraft were overwhelmingly poor and single. Most were widows. Hale & his contemporaries found independent women to be a serious threat in society. She was not owned by father or husband, which meant that she was an unnatural presence.

Women without a man to tightly control their behaviors were viewed as extremely susceptible to immorality and becoming a Satanic force in the community. Hale believed it was in society's best interest for men of the state to step in and control these women.

A woman's primary purpose in adulthood was to be married, be obedient to a man, & to have children. Alito invoking Hale in his opinion made it clear that he also thinks this too. It's his duty as a man to put the bodily fate of women in the hands of states run by white men.

Keep in mind that Hale was only talking about white Christian women. Women who didn't fall into this category were debated as even being women. They were viewed as less than human with even less rights. The rule of thumb didn't apply; they weren't worthy of such restraint.

Are you starting to see why Alito's invocation of Hale is so deeply, deeply fucked up on so many insane levels that there isn't a way to possibly overreact to how shitty his legal standing is here? Rage, horror, disgust, etc. are not deep enough reactions to his legal opinion.

And if you think Hale being invoked by Alito was something out of left field, think again. Hale is all over our legal system. The easiest application to find was the Salem Witch Trials, but his influence on our laws is much more insidious than that. Marital rape was not completely outlawed in the United States until 1993.

When Alito talks about going back to what the founding fathers meant, he is talking about all of this shit. Women's bodies being legally owned and controlled by men. He knows many Christian white women are groomed theologically to agree and will vote for this patriarchal control.

Alito knows that by kicking reproductive control back to the states that he is putting an incredible amount of power in the hands of the men who control these communities. He knows that white men are disproportionately in charge of these places.

Alito knows how much power and influence local churches have on local leadership. He knows most of these institutions are controlled by men. He is counting on it. He knows the biggest threat to women are the men in their homes and communities.

Justice Alito and men like him do not see women as independent human beings with their own human rights. They see us as incapable of making our own decisions. They consider men to be divinely appointed to rule over women.

This is not an exaggeration. If they think of white Christian women this way, imagine what they think about women of color, women of non-Christian groups, or trans women and men. The utter disdain towards them is deep, disturbing, incomprehensible, and violent.


— @Literature_Lady"
May 6, 2022

If Abortion Is Illegal, Will Every Miscarriage Be a Potential Crime?


3 hours ago
If Abortion Is Illegal, Will Every Miscarriage Be a Potential Crime?
A woman in Oklahoma was recently convicted of manslaughter after having a miscarriage. She likely won’t be the last.
Cecilia Nowell

snip//

There’s another reason this Supreme Court decision could lead to more miscarriage prosecutions: Self-induced abortions and miscarriages—which occur in one in four pregnancies—can look identical. If someone shows up at the hospital and says they’re having a miscarriage, doctors might suspect there is more going on. In other words, pregnancies that don’t result in birth become suspect in places where abortion is outlawed.

That might sound extreme, but consider El Salvador, where abortion is completely banned. More than 140 people, mostly impoverished women living in rural regions, have been incarcerated for illegal abortions—many of whom insist they merely miscarried. In Poland, where a court last year imposed a country-wide, near-total ban on abortion, a new bill proposes requiring doctors to report all pregnancies and miscarriages to a registry controlled and monitored by the government, raising fears it will heighten scrutiny of and prosecutions over pregnancies that don’t end in birth.

If you think that can’t happen in the United States, consider this: In 2019, during a hearing as part of an investigation that threatened to close Missouri’s lone abortion clinic, the head of the state’s department of health testified the office had created a spreadsheet tracking Planned Parenthood abortion patients’ menstrual periods using state medical records. The purpose: To identify people who’d and investigate “failed” abortions—people who had gone in for an abortion but were still pregnant and not getting their period—in an attempt to prove that abortion complications are common (they aren’t). And since the leaked Supreme Court draft, Louisiana has taken the lead in saying what’s coming next, via a bill saying people who get abortions can be charged with homicide.

“There’s no medical way to tell the difference between a miscarriage and a medication abortion. And so the difference between whether someone gets reported isn’t anything medical,” says Rafa Kidvai, who directss the legal defense fund at the reproductive justice group If/When/How. “And that’s obviously about race, about Blackness, about indigeneity, or anyone that feels suspicious.”


more...

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2022/05/roe-abortion-miscarriage-crime-murder-prosecution/
May 6, 2022

I Counted All the Scholars Cited in the Leaked Roe Opinion. Can You Guess How Many Were Women?

https://www.motherjones.com/mojo-wire/2022/05/alito-roe-opinion-how-many-female-scholar-citations/

I Counted All the Scholars Cited in the Leaked Roe Opinion. Can You Guess How Many Were Women?
Jackie Flynn Mogensen



If you read the leaked draft of the Supreme Court opinion overturning Roe v. Wade, and especially if you have a uterus, you may notice several factual errors about women and pregnancy made by its author, Justice Samuel Alito. (My colleague Pema Levy, in fact, chronicles a few here.) Those errors, it turns out, may have something to do with whom Alito is citing: In all its 98 pages, the draft cites very few women.

I know because I counted. Or, at least, I tried. The opinion includes more than 75 citations from legal experts, historians, and scholars of philosophy. By my tally, just four are women. I also counted the number of times Alito cited a judge, either on the Supreme Court or lower courts. In all, he cites a judge or justice more than 90 times. Of those, just five were women.

I’d also like to point out that Alito cites himself at least six times. I repeat: The man who authored the opinion to effectively end the right to abortion in the United States has cited himself more times than he cited female scholars combined.

snip//

The asymmetry in Alito’s draft is, to put it mildly, disappointing. But it also reflects who held—and often continues to hold—power in this country. After all, this is a document that may effectively govern the bodies of millions of uterus-owners. Shouldn’t we have more of a say in it?
May 5, 2022

Schumer Calls for Abortion Vote Next Week

https://politicalwire.com/2022/05/05/schumer-calls-for-abortion-vote-next-week/

Schumer Calls for Abortion Vote Next Week
May 5, 2022 at 2:18 pm EDT By Taegan Goddard


Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said that “he planned to move on Wednesday to bring up a bill that would codify abortion rights into federal law, moving quickly in the wake of a leaked Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade, despite clear evidence that the measure lacks the support to be enacted,” the New York Times reports.

Politico: “The Senate already took a failed vote in February on nearly identical legislation and there’s no reason to think that Wednesday’s outcome will be any different — the previous vote didn’t even receive support from all 50 members of the Democratic caucus.“
May 5, 2022

This Republican tweet counted on people not having read the Constitution. Whoops

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2022/5/5/2095901/-Twitter-offers-House-Judiciary-Republicans-an-education-on-the-Constitution

This Republican tweet counted on people not having read the Constitution. Whoops
Laura Clawson for Daily Kos
Daily Kos Staff
Thursday May 05, 2022 · 11:30 AM EDT


Boy, did the Republicans of the House Judiciary Committee own the libs in the wake of the leak showing the Supreme Court is poised to overturn Roe v. Wade.

“Still trying to find the word ‘abortion’ in the Constitution,” the committee Republicans tweeted. Quite the devastating argument ... if you’ve never read the Constitution.

Twitter users were quick to respond with a long, long list of other things that aren’t in the Constitution. Among them:

Woman or women
God, Jesus, Christ, Christian, or Bible
Marriage
Family or child
Filibuster
Nine. Or for that matter any specified number of Supreme Court justices.
Corporations or corporate personhood
Student loans
Police


The list goes on. Some users also pointed to places where the Constitution specifically said that it was not a full and complete list of all rights, starting with the entire Ninth Amendment: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

But that’s not all:
https://twitter.com/votevets/status/1521820810218020865
Whether the House Judiciary Republicans were trying to get attention by making a completely ludicrous statement or were counting on their followers not knowing a damn thing about the Constitution—and both things are equally possible, as is some combination of the two—it’s nonetheless a telling attempt. Being completely dishonest is their only option here.
May 4, 2022

The Right's Bad-Faith Pearl-Clutching Over the Supreme Court Leak

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2022/05/supreme-court-leak-republicans/

21 hours ago
The Right’s Bad-Faith Pearl-Clutching Over the Supreme Court Leak
Distraction tactic or an addiction to grievance politics? You choose.
Inae Oh


snip//

The leak is unusual, for sure. But it’s not unprecedented. Opinions, discussions, and intra-court bickering have been leaked before. Even the 1973 Roe decision itself was leaked to the media. More importantly, the supposed sanctity of the high court has lived through many historical horrors and the modern dints of Bush v. Gore, as well as the blocked nomination of Merrick Garland.

It’s useful to remember that the right is currently staging a pearl-clutching meltdown over something just about everyone across the political spectrum knew was all but certain to happen. (Just look at the pages of Mother Jones from the past few years.) Could all these people, who likely share the same unflinching disregard for a right to an abortion as Alito expressed in his draft opinion, really be so incensed over a precious process?

Judging by some of the characters crying foul right now, I doubt it. In fact, it seems as though the right has every incentive to perform outrage over supposed leftists secretly undermining the Supreme Court by distracting from the facts. That a conservative-leaning Supreme Court is about to do something deeply unpopular among the American public. That the right’s decades-long fever dream of ending abortion is closing in on a critical victory. Either that or they simply love being the party of the aggrieved.
May 4, 2022

DHS watchdog says Trump's agency appears to have altered report on Russian interference...

In what universe is altering a report issued from a federal agency considered legal?

DHS watchdog says Trump's agency appears to have altered report on Russian interference in 2020 election in part because of politics
Priscilla Alvarez byline
Zachary Cohen
By Priscilla Alvarez and Zachary Cohen, CNN
Updated 8:12 PM ET, Tue May 3, 2022



Washington (CNN)Former President Donald Trump's Department of Homeland Security delayed and altered an intelligence report related to Russian interference in the 2020 election, making changes that "appear to be based in part on political considerations," according to a newly released watchdog report.

The April 26 Homeland Security inspector general's assessment provides a damning look at the way DHS' Office of Intelligence and Analysis dealt with intelligence related to Russia's efforts to interfere in the US, stating the department had deviated from its standard procedures in modifying assessments related to Moscow's targeting of the 2020 presidential election.

The conclusion that Trump's appointee appeared to have tried to downplay Russian meddling in a key intelligence report is the latest example of how his aides managed his aversion to any information about how Russia might be helping his election prospects. According to special counsel Robert Mueller's report, Trump officials tried to avoid the topic during meetings and at hearings, because he would become enraged and upset when Russian meddling came up.

more...

https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/03/politics/donald-trump-russian-interference-election-politics/index.html

Profile Information

Gender: Female
Hometown: NY
Home country: US
Current location: Florida
Member since: Mon Sep 6, 2004, 08:54 PM
Number of posts: 171,732
Latest Discussions»babylonsister's Journal