|
|
|
|
PROTECTION PRECEDENCE
Things seem to happen in 3s and this certainly is true for a prime issue in our quest for women's equal protection under the law.
1] Great news: James Kopp has been arrested. He is accused of killing Dr. Barnett Slepian, a woman's doctor who performed abortions. Slepian was shot in his Amherst, N.Y. home on October 1998.
2] The bad news is that the California federal appeals court threw out a record $109 mil verdict against anti-abortion activists. The court ruled that a Web site, and wanted posters branding abortion doctors, "baby butchers" and criminals were protected by the First Amendment.
3] Encouraging news is that NARAL is putting on a multi million $$ campaign. Arguably, it has seen the clear and present danger of the Cheney/Bush boys and is circling the wagons. If they use the same old tired rhetorical Trojan horse "choice" to debate the opponents of all aspects of family planning, it's too late as the enemy is already within the gates.
We have written many times how the religious opposition (and there really isn't any other kind) has usurped the argument by repetitive declarations that women (and others) who advocate a woman's right to abortion are baby killers. In short, they have made our position synonymous with murder incorporated, driving away former supporters.
It
would seem only fair that we use their rhetoric against them. To that end
then, we ask, "when is it acceptable to society to kill babies?"
Historically and in the present, there are many instances of baby killing
and to some extent a fairly consistent excuse for making baby killing an
O.K. thing. That reason (or excuse) most commonly used is: "to protect."
Throughout many wars both past and present, religions have supported the many instances where babies were slaughtered. Indeed, the great Jehovah, the Judeo/Christian God of War, set the pace as referenced in the Old Testament of the Bible. Jehovah was "protecting" himself when He ordered the mass murder of innocents. He ordered the killing of all, even to the fetuses in womb, to protect his supreme order: "Thou shall have no other Gods before me."
Mohammed, too, has subscribed to baby killing when the reason is "to protect." We see this in the Middle East even now where religious zealots, wearing towels around their heads, shoot and are shot at by religious zealots, wearing towels around their shoulders. "Send in the babies to the slaughter," they cry. "The Jihad is blessed in the sight of Mohammed/Jehovah. We protect our selves, our rights, our land, JUST LIKE OUR GOD HAS TAUGHT US."
Remember the tunnels and huts of Vietnam? These were not occupied by soldiers but by babies, pregnant women and old men. Napalm to the rescue! Justified by the "to protect" clause in man's contract with his Gods. And at every conflict around the world and every foxhole, the chaplain representing one or more of the Gods, declare that baby killing was O.K. with the big guy upstairs.
Even in times of no war, the religious zealots back a government when it is protecting its corporate buddies. Babies are so much more at risk in our environment than adults, but never mind.
· Drinking water contaminated with cancer causing arsenic? No problemo!
· Excessive emissions of carbon monoxide? No problemo!
What's the killing of a few babies here and a few babies there when the important thing is "to protect" the bottom line?
Seriously, women's clinics and Planned Parenthood work tirelessly to limit the need for abortions by teaching women family planning with other methods of birth control. Science has come up with "the morning after pill" but that is hung up in religious politics and not available to all women. There is no foundation in the Bible or in law that should prevent a woman's right to protect herself.
For
the continued PROTECTION of all women, abortion must remain available and
legal. It is required as a backup protection for health reasons and sometimes
to save the life of a woman.
But always remember that the real issue for women is not abortion. It is our human rights given us by the 14th Amendment. It is whether or not we will continue to allow the government to hold our uterus hostage, and deny our right to equal protection under the law. And as for baby killing -- there is precedence.
2001-015
Copyright
2001 Renee T. Louise and Ruth M. Sprague, Ph.D. These articles may be republished
for noncommercial use only, provided that they are copied intact, and that
this copyright notice is attached. Address all queries to: twanda@gendergappers.org.
G e n d e r G a p p e r s T M
|
|
|
|