Jennifer Killpack-KnutsenKeep Your Religion Off My Body
What do you call a group of people that want to control your life based upon their own religous/superstitious ideology; who have an excessive need to control a woman’s freedom because their interpretation of their religous/superstitious ideology is that women are inferior to men and therefore deserve less freedom? I call it the Utah Taliban.
What started out as a “trigger law” has become a serious threat against reproductive freedom in Utah. HB235 S1 (substitute bill) has become an all out assult on Roe v. Wade.
Meet Rep. Paul Ray, a Republican from Clearfield, who wants to be in control of your body and your life (but only if you are a sexually active woman).
Ironically, the way the legislature does email addresses make Rep. Ray’s email: pray at utah.gov (shudder). You can also reach him at PO BOX 977, CLEARFIELD, UT 84089 or 801-725-2719.
Read H.B. 235 S1
This substituted bill just made it out of committee and is expected to have strong Taliban Republican Support. The last time our legislature tried such an assault on our reproductive rights was in 1991 — not only did it lose in court, but it cost the state $1.2 million dollars. Looks like our own little good ol’ boys club is hoping that the rapture righties will be able to trash Roe v. Wade so that they can get away with this waste of money.
Quotes from Paul Ray:
“The people here have an ideal of protecting children - that’s also unborn children.” We are so pro-protecting children! That’s why we don’t make laws to limit poisonous air in the SL Valley — we need to keep all those little children healthy. That’s why we are the most pro-war state in the U.S.: Gotta protect all those Iraqi children by bombing their houses and maiming and killing them.
“The honest reason behind this is, No. 1, I’m just plain flat-out against abortion,” : Good for you, Rep. Ray! I support your choice on this and I promise to never ever force you to have an abortion.
And don’t forget, this is the guy who’s critical thinking skills gave us this little gem: “If we have to wait until the next legislative session, we’re going to have an onslaught, a rush of abortions to go in and beat the deadline.”“Gee, I was gonna have this baby, but now that Roe v. Wade has been overturned, I’d better go get that abortion ‘cuz that’ll be my last chance to have one.” or “Oh crap! Roe v. Wade was overturned! I’d better get pregnant -stat!- so that I can get one last abortion.”
January 31st, 2007 at 3:14 pm
I guess some people don’t get it. The U.S. Supreme Court is not going to overturn Roe v. Wade. If they did, it would be the end of the GOP as a major political party.
January 31st, 2007 at 3:17 pm
Excellent post, Jennifer. My comment above is directed at dumb politicians!
January 31st, 2007 at 8:02 pm
And did you hear, they are well prepared to spend the million plus as argued by Shurtleff to fight and lose the case in the Supreme Court on principle.
Can you say GIANT ASSHOLES?
January 31st, 2007 at 10:33 pm
Jenni,
Well past time to overthrow the wealthy white patriarchs. I got your back sister. These are the same high horse busy bodies that want to cut back, privatize and eliminate social welfare, medicaid, child care, worker benefits and prison systems when budget time comes.
These folks could be some of the Modern Day Religious Fundamentalist Revival that has been USA since 2001.
Death to Queers, Hispanics, Muslims, Osama, Saddam and most of all liberal femisnit abortionists! They are ruining the country!
What fucking dipsticks
January 31st, 2007 at 10:48 pm
it’s the same righteous white men who stick their head in the sand and will not allow sex education in our public schools. Would rather see a young man or women contract a horrible disease then pass out of condoms. Will vote to give funding for a man to get an erection through medication, but will vote against providing funding for birth control for women. Did the thought ever occur to them…that perhaps these “PFB’s” (Paid For Boners) might actually impregnate a woman? This state must have the highest masterbation rate in the nation! Let’s step back and look at this picture…. So we have a bunch men running around with PFB’s, women without equal access to birth control. And if this bill passes, no means by which to end a unwanted pregnancy brought about by the above mentioned PFB’s Why is it such a leap of faith to understand this point. Take the one or two million dollars that it will cost to defend this new law in court, and use these funds to make sure every woman has the means to prevent the need for an abortion in the future.
January 31st, 2007 at 11:05 pm
Eric Schwartz nails it in this clever song:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exDo2SMdB-0
January 31st, 2007 at 11:26 pm
Can I ask, why is it that (Republican) men are most of the most voiciferous opponents of choice? Excepting all of you, of course. When ever I pass by the women’s clinic here in town and there are protesters, they are all men. When I wrote about choice on blogging for choice day on Jen’s Green Journal, two male writers argued with me for several comments about my pro-choice views. Men run most of the anti-choicers national organizations.
I know there are women anti-choicers out there, but I don’t hear them too often.
I wish I were in a position to write legislation to make vasectomies for Republicans mandatory — even though that’s still not on the same level of bodily violation as forced pregnancy, it might give them an idea of what it’s like to have a women deciding what should be done with their bodies.
January 31st, 2007 at 11:29 pm
I meant to include a link in my comment above . Abortion has been the one of the topics that’s generated the most discussion on my blog: http://green-jenni.livejournal.com/151932.html
February 1st, 2007 at 9:57 am
Jenni,
Let me take a stab at that…
In a tribal society or sub-culture loyalty is a virtue. Since loyalty is measured by external/visible cues, when not at war, other external cues, rituals, and behaviors are exaggerated to compensate for the lost opportunities afforded by war such as courage, heroism, sacrifice, etc.
For the anti-choice folks, its not about womens right, heath, family, ciritcal thinking and reason. Its about pseudo war. An opportunity to rise above others in status by demonstrating loyalty against a manufactured adversary (the courts).
(can anyone think of other fabricated adversaries in history?)
Keeping in mind, not all members of a tribe feel compelled to this kind of incessant struggle to prove their loyalty, but certainly the “leader type” which emerges in our political system breeds them.
Jenni, I think you are either not following my “authoritarian” thing, or you remain stubbornly idealistic about some people’s motives.:)
February 2nd, 2007 at 10:20 pm
Since government is all about imposing one’s personal morals on everyone else, and you are here calling for others to keep their religion (moral) off your body, can I assume correctly that you would support eliminating most government entirely? Certainly Fluoride is some imposing their morals (and medical decisions) on others. But I’d include every last welfare program as imposing someone’s morals (forced charity) on everyone else. Soccer Stadiums? Definitely someone imposing their morals on me. ( I can think of many better uses for the taxpayers money than subsidizing a soccer stadium. Here’s my first suggestion — let the people keep their money and spend it however they want!)
Socialized Healthcare? Imposed morals.
Eliminate prayer from school? Imposed morals on those who want to pray. (That one is a sticky one, because school prayer might be imposing morals as well. Perhaps the answer is to eliminate public education, which imposes morals (the good of education) on others (people without children, people paying for their own children’s education plus for others’).
Force democracy on other nations? Imposing morals.
So, I’ll just come out and say it — for Democrats to cry about anti-infanticide efforts as others imposing their morals upon them is pretty hypocrical given that their socialist program of ‘the good of society being more important than the rights of individuals’ is precisely a program of imposing morals on others. They are really crying about which morals ought to be imposed and which not. Of course, the Republicans aren’t behind them one whit. Equal harm to the country in slightly different ways. Even the Constitution Party and yes, even the Libertarian party in their dreams of wresting control of government also would impose their morals on others — their redeeming qualities over the previously mentioned Ds and Rs being only their platform of limited government, which contracts the scope of areas over which morals may be imposed upon others.
It’s high time we return to the foundational principle of principles — the law of reciprocity, known as the Golden Rule. If you don’t like others imposing their morals on you, then as a matter of principle stop imposing your morals on others. D’s, you hear that? Rs, you too!
February 2nd, 2007 at 10:29 pm
Phil205 Dude,
Where on Earth did you get that “government is all about imposing one’s personal morals on everyone else”? I doubt very much if you can support that statement with any broadly accepted evidence.
You yourself said, “It’s high time we return to the foundational principle of principles”
You can’t just call everything a moral and then equivocate till the cows come home. How can we have a rational discussion?
Can we draw the line somewhere in you definition of moral? Otherwise anyone can claim anything on moral grounds and the system breaks down real fast.
If we can justify a law based on the principle of the “common good” then we don’t also need to call it a moral.
Is any of this making sense?
February 2nd, 2007 at 10:51 pm
Philo-
How ’bout let’s take the bible out of the discussion, ‘k? That’s a good place to draw the line. Makes it nice and simple.
You can be ethical and moral without religion, and there have been many, many religious folks have certainly shown themselves to be immoral and unethical.
You are confusing a lot of things with “morals”.
February 2nd, 2007 at 11:08 pm
Jenni,
We could actually leave the Bible in it, because I’m not sure that it actually condemns homosexuality.
But, as a general rule, it’s best to leave the Bible in the Pew on Sunday and out of the policy making process done during the work week.
February 3rd, 2007 at 12:14 am
Since the thread is about abortion, that’s what I was refering to — but your point “We could actually leave the Bible in it, because I’m not sure that it actually condemns homosexuality.” is a good one. I’ve been doing a little online research about what the bible says about abortion and when life begins (or “ensoulment” as one paper I read calls it) , and there’s no condemnation of abortion even though it was done in biblical times. The bible in several places suggests that fetus were not “living”which really doesn’t back up the anti-choice’s beliefs.
My personal belief is that life is a process and not a single event, so I’d probably feel diffently about an 8 month fetus than I would about an 8 week one.
October 15th, 2007 at 5:51 pm
ur..so astute, the key to obfuscation, is that no one knows what you are saying…brilliant.