The people rash
Speaking of “people who need abortion rights,” I’m horrified to see that even Margaret Talbot is doing it. She does at least say “women” too, but there’s way too much peopleing.
Starting with a “women” passage:
Mississippi’s brief to uphold its law offers, among other rationales, the assertion that women’s lives are so much freer, more equal, and more replete with birth-control options now than they were in 1973, when Roe legalized the right to abortion nationwide, that we can let that right go by the wayside.
You know what that’s like? It’s like the Supreme Court saying, in the Shelby ruling, that voting rights are not an issue any more, so we can stop protecting them. It was RBG who said that’s like throwing away your umbrella because it’s not raining right now. Why are women’s lives freer and more equal? Partly because of abortion rights, duuuuuuuuuh.
Furthermore, even in an egalitarian society with reliable access to contraception and to child care for all, people will still want, and should be able to exercise, agency over the intimate, life-transforming decisions of when, or whether, to have children. Many people will still feel a need to end pregnancies for reasons—health risks and crises, destructive or failed relationships, personal economic hardship, the needs of other children—that have little to do with prevailing social conditions.
There it is (and not for the last time.) People. Why say people? It’s women. This burden falls on women.
The procedure that anti-abortion lawyers want to portray as an unnecessary and outmoded privilege (and a shameful one) is a form of medical care that hundreds of thousands of people turn to each year, low-income people in particular. (Half of all abortions are obtained by people living below the federal poverty line.)
By women. Men never need abortions.
Not everybody can afford or obtain reliable birth control. And, despite Abbott’s absurd claim, there will always be people who become pregnant through coerced unprotected sex.
Women. It’s women that happens to. It doesn’t happen to men.
I’m wondering if an editor made her write it that way. She’s not your average trend-following dim bulb.
“Many people will still feel a need to end pregnancies for reasons–”
Christ on a sidecar. That one, in particular, has really ugly connotations to anyone with even a passing familiarity with MRAs, who (among other things) often claim they should have the right to force a woman to abort if they do not want the responsibilities of paternity (particularly the fiscal ones), all on the basis of ‘equal rights’ for men and women.
Well, you know, women do get in the way of people. /s
Or who will maintain that they have the right to force a woman unlucky enough to become pregnant to them to carry an unwanted child. It’s all so deeply disturbing that it took me years to take this sort of shit (waves arms vaguely in all directions) seriously because I thought it just had to be a few isolated, maladjusted and possibly deranged individuals. Turns out it’s somewhere between 40-60% of the population. Maybe a pandemic in the middle of a global warming extinction level event is just what we deserve. Maybe even need.
Forcing a woman to his child against her will is at least evolutionarily consistent, less so forcing an abortion. It’s not nice either way.
Survivor is refusing to use the word ‘woman’ too
…on the health hazards of women continuing to wear the same wet clothes multiple times
“Specifically, competing in wet clothes for extended periods of time puts players with vaginas in an especially risky position since urinary tract infections disproportionately affect people with shorter urethras, according to Minkin.”
[…] Via a comment by WomenAreWomen. […]