neadods: (Default)
[personal profile] neadods
This one has been making the rounds - the Feministe article on the effects of the Conscience Clause. The woman whose progressive hospital was bought out by a Catholic one, so she couldn't have the sterilization she wanted... nor an abortion now that she's pregnant again. The rape victim who called 15 pharmacies for Plan B, none of which had it. (Oh, some were concerned and willing to order it... but none would have it in time to take within the necessary period.) The teenaged virgin who can't get birth control to control her terrible periods because the guy running the only pharmacy in town passes judgement on her, circumstances unknown. “I mean I don’t hand out pills so young girls can have sex,” the pharmacist told her. “If you have a husband, which I doubt, bring him in with you next time and you can have pills.”

It's not a woman's place to control the output of her own body, y'know. We need a man to to give his permission to another man to take the drugs that affect only us.

This one hit this morning - Ohio Anti-Adult Bill Goes Too Far. Just a little too far... like defining sexual activity so broadly and so vaguely that tampon use becomes obscene. (And y'all thought Landover Baptist's rant about "Satan's Cotton Fingers" was a parody!)

To drop into personal anecdotes, that "takes too long to get Plan B" was also my personal experience. From prescription to pills in hand was about 4 days. In my case, it was a radical doctor handing out 'scrips at the March for Women's Lives and a surprisingly bashful but concerned pharmacist ("Uh, we don't have it, we'll have to order it... Uh, do you... um, need...?") I was getting it to make a point and Just In Case, but had I been in need, I would have been hosed.

Date: 2005-05-15 03:40 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] fiona64.livejournal.com
Just a little too far... like defining sexual activity so broadly and so vaguely that tampon use becomes obscene.

To say nothing of the fact that (as my husband pointed out), the way this law is worded, any woman who goes for an annual pelvic exam has just had "intercourse" with her gynecologist.

Date: 2005-05-15 04:48 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] elasg.livejournal.com
You know, it is crap like that that makes me wonder how in hell ANY woman could intentionally vote for jerks who would make such laws.

I am aghast... and PISSED.

Date: 2005-05-16 01:00 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] starcat-jewel.livejournal.com
Oh, but THEY would never need the kind of access they want to deny to other women. And if they did, they'd get that access -- because THEIR case is always SPECIAL, not like those other whores.

Date: 2005-05-16 02:35 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] beckyzoole.livejournal.com
The bill sounds pretty bad. But to be fair, the clause defining "intercourse" does say "the insertion without privilege" etc.

I am not fully up on legal terminology, but does "privilege" refer to permission to do so? In other words, when I insert a tampon in my vagina myself, I am not doing anything sexual. But if a random pervert were to forcible insert a tampon in my vagina, that would be a form of rape with an object and therefore "intercourse" for legal purposes.

Profile

neadods: (Default)
neadods

February 2023

S M T W T F S
   1234
567891011
121314 15161718
19202122232425
262728    

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 5th, 2025 10:06 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios