So this let me investigate the author’s organization–the IWLC is the legal branch of the Independent Women’s Forum–which, in turn, is opposed to environmental regulation, anti-racism, and pretty much every other progressive stance that they bother taking up. (They obstensibly support Title IX, but pretty much only in reference to Trans issues, as far as I could find.)
In particular, they are water-carriers for the Pro-Lifers, issuing statements that downplay the significance of Dobbs, suggesting that it’s perfectly reasonable for some states to opt to deny women health care, and so on. This is NOT a feminist organization, in the least, and I have real concerns about their ability to muddy the waters on a lot of things that feminists care about.
And in the Miscellany thread, I pointed out that the ‘definitions’ section of the OE absolutely is in lock-step with the personhood movement which is key to the legal theories that seek to justify a ban on abortion.
So this let me investigate the author’s organization–the IWLC is the legal branch of the Independent Women’s Forum–which, in turn, is opposed to environmental regulation, anti-racism, and pretty much every other progressive stance that they bother taking up. (They obstensibly support Title IX, but pretty much only in reference to Trans issues, as far as I could find.)
In particular, they are water-carriers for the Pro-Lifers, issuing statements that downplay the significance of Dobbs, suggesting that it’s perfectly reasonable for some states to opt to deny women health care, and so on. This is NOT a feminist organization, in the least, and I have real concerns about their ability to muddy the waters on a lot of things that feminists care about.
And in the Miscellany thread, I pointed out that the ‘definitions’ section of the OE absolutely is in lock-step with the personhood movement which is key to the legal theories that seek to justify a ban on abortion.