It’s no surprise that the Mississippi legislature is still trying to outlaw abortion. I think that’s the official state sport. However, someone in the state senate has a wacky sense of humor this time around. Oh, it’s not a joke? Damn.
Most of Mississippi Senate Bill 220 (PDF) is the same old garbage. But this is fantastic. The bill reads:
A pregnant mother possesses certain inherent rights that are natural intrinsic rights which enjoy affirmative protection under the Constitution of the United States, and under the laws or Constitution of the State of Mississippi; that among these rights are the fundamental rights of the pregnant mother to her relationship with her child; her fundamental right to make decisions that insure the well-being of her child; and her interest in her own health and bodily integrity.
Which of those things don't belong? See, you can’t say women have an inherent right to their “bodily integrity� while not allowing her to exercise that right. You can’t acknowledge that women have the right to determine what’s best for her pregnancy as long as it doesn’t involve abortion.
The other thing that gets me about this bill is it identifies “rights� in false opposition of each other:
The right and duty of the state to protect and preserve the life of the unborn child cannot co-exist with the right or duty to destroy that life by the physician.
Uh, what? On what planet has that ever been a real issue with abortion? There aren’t roving bands of abortion providers fighting for their rights to terminate pregnancies, assholes. I really hate the fake protectionism here. Like, the state just has to safeguard the “relationship between a pregnant woman and her unborn child� from evil bloodthirsty doctors. Because obviously no woman who actually knows what she’s doing would ever choose to have an abortion. We should all move to Mississippi. They take good care of their women.
Thanks sunshine for the heads-up.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Don't worry, ladies. Mississippi will protect you.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/6789
o_O . . . the illogic of "we're protecting AND violating bodily integrity in a single bill" boggles the mind.
I had to like, read that a couple of times because it made no sense. The right of physicians to destroy life? When has anyone been complaining about the rights of physicians to perform abortions? Way to introduce an entirely NEW spin on the anti-choice movement there. Fucking nonsense.
This is just more evidence of the cognitive dissonence needed to convince themselves that abortion is murder that the woman shouldn't be punished for because she's a victim of those evil abortion doctors.
A woman's right to bodily integrity means the right not to be prey to those evil doctors who want to kill her unborn baby, doncha know. Because, as the bill says, "procedures terminating the life of an unborn child impose risks to the life and health of the pregnant woman."
This is my favorite part:
"an abortion is an unworkable method for a pregnant mother to give up, surrender, or waive her fundamental right to her relationship with her child." WTF?
The entire bill is an exercize in legislating the concept that women are hapless victims to doctors pressuring them to have abortions.
Wait! I just stumbled upon another gem; one requirement for obtaining an abortion is being informed about BIRTH CONTROL OPTIONS.
But can pregnant women still go into restaurants in Mississippi?
This is some scary 'effing logic.
Here's a question I've never had answered for me: What exactly is the state's interest in ensuring a pregnancy is carried to term? I wrote an essay on the reproductive rights of minors, and all of the cases talked about the state's interest in protecting potential life or whatever, and I still don't understand what that interest is. What business is it of the governement to have any sort of interest in potential life rather than existing life? I don't understand what their legal interest is.
Okay, it's not just the logic that's a train wreck on this one, it's the grammar, usage, and mechanics of the writing as well.
"...her fundamental right to make decisions that insure the well-being of her child"
It's "ensure" not "insure." I mean, unless they are requiring women to take out insurance on her fetus. This bill reads like it was written by a middle schooler trying to imitate legalese.
Hey, Mississippi? I suggest you invest a little more in education when even your state legislators can't construct simple sentences with good grammar.
Ugh, not that my post had the best grammar there (it's hard to proofread in this little box!). But I can't edit my comments, whereas presumably whoever submitted this bill had time to proofread.
"procedures terminating the life of an unborn child impose risks to the life and health of the pregnant woman."
Funny how you are nine to eleven times more likely to die from going through childbirth than having an abortion...BUT ABORTIONS ARE DANGEROUS! ::headdesk::
I know it is fun to ridicule how idiotic the state of Mississippi is. I did the same thing before I moved down here. But, it'd be nice if Feministing readers actually helped us out by writing the sponsors of the bill to protest. Mississippi is not a lost cause, and I have lots of progressive allies, but it is hard to fight when national leaders only use Mississippi as a punch line.
I know it is fun to ridicule how idiotic the state of Mississippi is. I did the same thing before I moved down here. But, it'd be nice if Feministing readers actually helped us out by writing the sponsors of the bill to protest. Mississippi is not a lost cause, and I have lots of progressive allies, but it is hard to fight when national leaders only use Mississippi as a punch line.
Here's a question I've never had answered for me: What exactly is the state's interest in ensuring a pregnancy is carried to term?
There's not. The state is interested, it seems, in stripping women of their rights to full citizenship. That is, if you think the state's interests are the same as sexist men's, as these legislators do.
"What exactly is the state's interest in ensuring a pregnancy is carried to term?"
Religion? It's what the more vocal people want?
It's been a while since I read the whole of Roe v. Wade back in college, but I think that the decision basically argues that the state has an increasing interest in protecting fetal life as the pregnancy progresses . . . it's basically following the framework of the rest of the opinion, which seeks to balance the woman's right to bodily integrity and privacy with the fetus's increasing viability. So the state interest in protecting human life is extended by degree back into gestation.