alright you little shits, you're going to make me get all pro-choice upin here

Do not pretend like I didn't see what you did in Texas.

The Short Version: The Texas House Committee republicans have voted to move forward with a bill that places new restrictions on the whens*, wheres*, and hows* of abortions after the following measures were taken during the meeting:

• limiting the testimonies from the over 2,000 eople who signed up to fewer than 100 people with a 3-minute time limit for each person and a total of eight hours of testimony, as well as a room seating only 64 people
• refusing to consider any Democratic amendments to the bill
• strict security precautions to subdue any disruptions from the pro-choice protesters, even though 3,500 people came to the Capitol to register an opinion on the matter, and a majority of those people were not in favor of this bill
• despite the fact that Senator Wendy Davis led a chaotic but passionate 13-hour filibuster just recently that completely derailed a very similar attempt during a public testimony on the same restrictions

*This bill includes but is not limited to the following restrictions: an outright ban on abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, mandate that abortion doctors obtain admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles, nonsurgical abortions (i.e. a pill) also have to take place in a surgical center, and require that procedures take place at ambulatory surgical centers*.

**Only 11% of Texas clinics qualify as "ambulatory" surgical centers and are in densely-populated metropolitan areas, and many clinics would need to relocate to meet ventilation requirements to have the space required for operating rooms and hallways.

Okay. Whoa. Back it up there, partner. 

This is an issue I feel very strongly about. This may be, in fact, the issue I feel most strongly about, aside from the age-old separation of church and state debate (which isn't a debate by the way, that's actually a real thing upon which our country was founded, but if I don't stop that subject now, I'll never stop). The way in which a person handles themselves when asked about this topic, in my opinion, is one of the single most defining aspects of their character. It speaks on an infinitely deeper level than just pro-life and pro-choice: it cues you in on their most basic values, on their integrity, and on their respect for other people.

I am passionately pro-choice. Funnily enough, I am passionately pro-choice, and I do not know if I could ever follow through with an abortion in my personal life. However, I would never deny anyone the right to seek abortion as an alternative to raising a child or adoption. That's a huge problem with people who identify as pro-choice: I am not pro-abortion. I am exactly what my label implies: I support a woman's right to choose the option that is best for her, even if it results in the intentional termination of a pregnancy. What pro-choice people support is not only the access to safe, legal methods of abortion, but also the reduction of the need for abortion itself. We don't want to kill all the babies, guys, I swear.

There are hundreds of reasons a woman may seek an abortion. They may include interference with education or work, inability to care for a dependent due to lack of emotional or financial stability, or simply the wish not to be a parent. One must never forget, though, that victims of rape, incest, or people who have pregnancies deemed "high-risk," or babies who will be born with fatal disabilities, for they also gain the right to abortion when pro-choice laws are passed. By doing so, you are telling women that they have the mental capacity and the civil liberty to make decisions about their own body. The decision whether or not to let another human being develop in your uterus is about the biggest decision a woman can make about her own body, if you ask me. 

Yes, sometimes, perfectly healthy embryos and fetuses are terminated in this process. Pro-life people argue that this fetus has the right to a life, but look here: 

By law, you cannot be forced to donate one of your kidneys or part of your liver to someone who needs it. You cannot be forced to give blood. Even if you are the only person with a certain blood type and your refusal will mean the death of someone else - maybe a family member, maybe your child - if you refuse, that is your right as a human being and no court can prosecute you for murder. You, and only you, are the final arbiter of what happens to your body, and if you decide the risks are too great, the right to refuse to help is absolute. What you are implying is that bodily autonomy ought to be less important than saving someone’s life; that a fetus, or a human being, should be given the opportunity to live at the expense of other people’s bodily autonomy. So put it into context. You have a kidney that’s a perfect match to someone in the hospital - let’s call him Fred - who will die in the next week if he doesn’t get it. For your own personal reasons, you do not wish to have your kidney removed. Your reasons aren’t material to this particular argument, but they can range anywhere from your phobia of hospitals to your allergy to most kinds of anesthesia, to a history of kidney disease in your family that may mean you will need that extra kidney one day or to the simple fact that you do not wish to give this kidney at this time. The point is: you do not consent. If life is considered more important than bodily autonomy, then the law can force you to be taken to the hospital against your will, be sedated against your will, cut open against your will, and have your organ removed against your will. 

And let us not forget that many (not all, but many, you cannot deny) who are in favor of restricting or outlawing abortion also do not support any of the necessary steps to prevent them. They do not agree, morally or for whatever reason, with birth control, adequate sex education, or easy access or knowledge of other resources. Do you realize what birth control and adequate sex education do when applied to society on a grander scale? You guessed it - they reduce the need for abortion by reducing the number of unintended pregnancies. Wow! What a concept! You cannot say, "You fucked up your life, sorry," while simultaneously stripping them of any of the resources that could have prevented the unsafe practice that led to the pregnancy in the first place. This logic allows for a very narrow spectrum of lifestyles, and honestly, I can see really no other reason than to forward the same narrow-minded, fucked up line of thinking and to put a bit of a damper on any kind of sex for pleasure at all.

We also cannot leave out the methods by which people try to prevent abortions. Look at Dr. Tiller, for example. He was murdered in May of 2009 because he provided abortion services. In 2003, Bush signed in the Federal Abortion Ban, which banned a particular method of safe abortion after 12 weeks, which had no exception to protect a woman's health, no regard for the medical groups and doctors who opposed this law, and does not leave the decision of viability to the doctor. There are also places called "Crisis Pregnancy Centers" who mislead women into thinking they are an establishment similar to Planned Parenthood; however, they use manipulation, trauma, lies, and even threats to keep women from getting abortions. Even today, people say things that just aren't true both directly and indirectly relating to abortions. People still say that abortions lead to breast cancer and mental illness. And remember that guy Todd Akin? I bet you do. "If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down." This line of thinking is particularly dangerous because it discredits those who seek abortions on the grounds of rape. It even may go so far as calling some of them liars. Remember Mourdock and that a child from rape is still what God intended? Just... no. No no no. We can't even go down that road. No.

Let me clarify something here: there is nothing wrong with holding the belief that life begins at conception. In America, A problem arises when you take that belief and you impose it upon other people. Be it a religious belief or just your own personal judgment, you have both the right to practice that in your own life and the obligation to tolerate the fact that others may not share the same viewpoint as you. It is, in fact, possible, to practice a faith in your personal life and understand that society functions in an entirely different way. Life may begin at conception for you, and that is perfectly acceptable. Abortion may be against your moral, religious, or spiritual code, and that is perfectly acceptable; however, it is your duty as both a citizen of  this country and an individual to realize that your own personal choices do not reflect the moral integrity of any other individual at any given time in the history of mankind. 

Joe Biden, in the 2012 vice-presidential debate, said:

With regard to abortion, I accept my church's position that life begins at conception. That's the church's judgment. I accept it in my personal life. But I refuse to impose it on equally devout Christians and Muslims and Jews, and - I just refuse to impose that on others, unlike my friend here, the congressman. I do not believe that we have a right to tell other people that women can't control their body. It's a decision between them and their doctor, in my view. And the Supreme Court--I'm not going to interfere with that.

 In fact, there is absolutely no affiliation between religious institutions and a pro-choice agenda. One big argument in the Romney campaign was that churches were a victim of Obamacare. That is the simplest issue in this blog post - it's a lie. Yes, Obamacare has the "contraceptive mandate" which requires that employers offer insurance plans that cover contraceptives without co-pay. Religious entities such as churches, temples, or mosques are exempt from the Obamacare requirement. Only religiously-affiliated institutions have this requirement, meaning religious universities or hospitals. Huge difference there. Like, super mind-changing difference there. Using those words incorrectly could make people angry and uninformed at the same time... oh, wait.

I am done babbling on for now. I just wanted to rant because I want to be clear: being in favor of publicly banning abortion on a societal scale rather than valuing human life at conception as an individual moral choice does not prevent abortion. It does not promote women's rights. It does not promote a child's rights. It actually does nothing at all to help anyone and is oftentimes promoted through false information and unprofessional means. Simply put, it just makes you an asshole.