Your web-browser is very outdated, and as such, this website may not display properly. Please consider upgrading to a modern, faster and more secure browser. Click here to do so.
I just read an article that a 9 week old fetus “Testified” in front of the Legislature on the Ohio “Heart beat bill”
Everything that is going on with reproductive rights for women in America makes me want to RAGE (See rage here). BUT NOW Pro-Lifers are just plain insulting our intelligence.
Connie Schultz describes the hearing (source: Feministing)
“We‘re watching fetuses testify by ultrasound on a screen, and when the woman was rubbing the jelly on the belly of the woman, and she was only nine weeks pregnant and they couldn’t find a heart beat, she made a joke at one point that if only they had the vaginal probe, then they could get it and a bunch of the men on the committee started chuckling. And at that moment you realize that this has nothing to do with women‘s health. This has nothing to do with protecting life. This has everything to do with playing to their extremist base.
…And I sat there while an attorney from Washington got up and first suggested—not suggested—said that some women who are raped want to have those babies because it is a triumph over their rapist. And I could hear women gasp in the audience and some of them were tearing up. This is cruelty. This is an assault on women‘s rights.
The same lawyer at one point said if Romeo—I‘m not kidding you—if Romeo had known that Juliet still had a heart beat, Romeo would not have killed himself. And I wanted to look around the room and just ask for a show of hands, how many know this is fiction? How many know this was a play?”
Reading this description makes me sick, and at the same time wanna laugh. I cannot think for a moment that Pro-Life activists thought that these arguments will actually stand up as LEGITIMATE arguments. I really even struggle to describe this as extremism because even that sounds sane. Calling this extremism would actually make it seem LESS absurd than it is.
Everyday I read about new regulations on abortions, new bills being proposed, new bills being voted on that restrict a Woman’s right over her body, her life and her CHOICES. If you live in Ohio contact your local representative and STOP the “Heartbeat Bill”. Become an activist and regain rights over your body.
11 notes View comments
(sent in by an anonymous reader)
A Texas high school cheerleader who was kicked off the squad for refusing to chant the name of a basketball player - the same athlete she said had raped her four months earlier - lost a U.S. Supreme Court appeal Monday.
A federal appeals court ruled in September that the cheerleader was speaking for the school, not herself, and had no right to remain silent when called on to cheer the athlete by name.
The Supreme Court denied review of the case Monday without comment.
The girl, identified by her initials H.S., was 16 when she said she was raped at a party in her southeast Texas hometown of Silsbee in October 2008. She identified the assailant as Rakheem Bolton, a star on the Silsbee High School football team.
Bolton ultimately pleaded guilty in September 2010 to a misdemeanor assault charge and received a suspended sentence.
At a February 2009 basketball game in Huntsville, Texas, H.S. joined in leading cheers for the Silsbee team, which included Bolton. But when Bolton went to the foul line to shoot a free throw, H.S. folded her arms and was silent.
H.S. said the district superintendent, his assistant and the school principal told her she had to cheer for Bolton or go home. She refused and was dismissed from the squad.
H.S., joined by her parents, sued school officials and the district. They claimed the school had punished her for exercising her right of free expression.
An appeals court in New Orleans ruled against her, saying a cheerleader acts as a “mouthpiece” for the school.
Federal courts have also ordered H.S. and her parents to reimburse the district more than $45,000 for the costs of defending against a frivolous suit.
The family’s lawyer, Laurence Watts, said the ruling means students who try to exercise their right of free speech can be punished for refusing to follow “insensitive and unreasonable directions.”
Disgusting.
199 notes View comments (via an-alternate-reality-deactivate & thefeministhub)
