#Pro-Life Advocacy

[tmarshconnors]

Assisted Dying is Murder

This Friday, the House of Commons will debate one of the most contentious issues of our time: assisted dying. The proposed bill seeks to legalize physician-assisted suicide under certain circumstances, purportedly offering terminally ill patients the right to end their lives with medical assistance. Advocates argue it’s about dignity, autonomy, and relieving suffering. But let’s not mince words—this is state-sanctioned murder disguised in a cloak of compassion.

As MPs prepare to vote, they face not just a political choice but a moral reckoning. Legalizing assisted dying is not a slippery slope; it’s a moral cliff edge, and stepping over it would fundamentally change how we value human life.

The Sanctity of Life

At the heart of this debate lies the sanctity of life—a principle that has underpinned our civilization for centuries. Life is sacred not because of its quality but because of its inherent value. Allowing assisted dying shifts the cultural narrative: life becomes conditional, and its worth is measured against suffering, convenience, or perceived "burdens." This is not just a danger to the terminally ill; it risks redefining our collective ethics.

Once we legalize the idea that some lives are not worth living, where do we stop? It won’t take long before subtle pressures arise—financial, emotional, societal—on vulnerable individuals to consider ending their lives to ease the burden on others. That’s not autonomy; it’s coercion wrapped in faux liberty.

The Role of the State

The government’s primary role is to protect life, not to facilitate its destruction. Enacting a law that permits assisted dying would cross an ethical boundary that no legislature should breach. The moment we allow the state to sanction killing, even under tightly controlled conditions, we open the door to future expansions. History teaches us that such boundaries rarely remain static.

Consider the experience of countries like Canada, where medical assistance in dying (MAID) has led to a widening scope of eligibility. Initially intended for terminally ill adults, the law now includes those with chronic illnesses and, in some cases, mental health conditions. This mission creep demonstrates how quickly safeguards erode when human life is reduced to a question of utility.

The False Promise of Safeguards

Proponents of assisted dying assure us that strict safeguards will prevent abuse. But no safeguard is foolproof, especially when it comes to subjective judgments about suffering or consent. How do we ensure someone isn’t being subtly pressured by family members, caregivers, or even their own feelings of guilt about being a burden? Vulnerable people—elderly, disabled, or financially strapped—could easily feel obligated to choose death.

Moreover, once the principle of assisted dying is established, it will inevitably be applied more broadly. After all, if it’s compassionate to help a terminally ill patient die, why not someone with chronic pain? Or severe mental illness? These "logical" extensions lead to a world where the most vulnerable are encouraged, even subtly, to end their lives rather than live with dignity and care.

Real Compassion

True compassion isn’t about helping people die; it’s about helping people live, even in the face of suffering. Palliative care, mental health support, and community resources are where we should focus our efforts. We can alleviate pain and provide emotional and spiritual solace without resorting to lethal injections.

The argument for assisted dying often stems from a place of fear: fear of pain, fear of dependence, fear of loss of autonomy. But instead of addressing those fears with care and support, this bill offers a permanent, irreversible solution to what are often temporary or manageable problems. That’s not compassion; it’s surrender.

A Call to MPs

On Friday, MPs must confront a fundamental question: will we remain a society that values every life, no matter how fragile, or will we take the first step toward normalizing state-assisted death? Assisted dying may seem like an easy answer to a difficult problem, but it is a betrayal of our moral responsibility to the most vulnerable.

Assisted dying isn’t about choice—it’s about abandoning those in need. It’s murder under the guise of mercy. MPs must reject this bill and reaffirm our commitment to life, dignity, and genuine compassion.

[ivygorgon]

[election2024-2028]

As Nick Fuentes so elegantly put it, "It's your body, so it's his choice." Prove him wrong.

quote from Louis McClung

Prove this idiot (Nick Fuentes) wrong.

You don't have to do stuff for me; you can choose to do what you want. It's up to you. "Your body, my choice," Fuentes says. Hell no, girls and AFABs out there.

[prolifeproliberty]

40 Days for Life begins TOMORROW!

This campaign of prayer and fasting for an end to abortion begins tomorrow and ends on Palm Sunday (April 2nd).

It is not too late to sign up for an hour! Click here to find your local campaign.

40 Days for Life has seen over 22 THOUSAND babies saved since they started in 2007.

The end of Roe does NOT mean the end of 40 Days for Life. Not only is this an international campaign, but even in places where abortion is illegal, pro-lifers are still needed outside abortion referral centers to pray and offer help for women considering traveling out of state for an abortion or ordering abortion pills by mail illegally.

Besides, spending an hour a week praying for the most vulnerable sounds like a great thing to include in your Lenten observance…just saying…

I will be outside my local abortion referral facility praying and offering alternatives every Monday from 4-5 during this campaign, in addition to my normal Saturday morning hour.

If you sign up for an hour, send me a message with your name and when your hour is. I will pray for your hour during mine (and you can pray for mine during yours if you want!)

(If you’re in the Austin, TX area, click here for our local campaign)

[twelvebooksstuff]

THIS IS SO COOL!! IVE DONE SOME WITH THE AUDUBON SOCIETY AND THE CORNELL BIRD LAB AND CANNOT RECOMMEND THIS ENOUGH!! ANY CITIZEN/COMMUNITY SCIENCE PROJECT IS A GREAT WAY TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE!! I CANNOT WAIT TO TRY SOME MORE OF THESE AND GET TO SUPPORT AMAZING PROJECTS

If you're feeling anxious or depressed about the climate and want to do something to help right now, from your bed, for free...

Start helping with citizen science projects

What's a citizen science project? Basically, it's crowdsourced science. In this case, crowdsourced climate science, that you can help with!

You don't need qualifications or any training besides the slideshow at the start of a project. There are a lot of things that humans can do way better than machines can, even with only minimal training, that are vital to science - especially digitizing records and building searchable databases

Like labeling trees in aerial photos so that scientists have better datasets to use for restoration.

Or counting cells in fossilized plants to track the impacts of climate change.

Or digitizing old atmospheric data to help scientists track the warming effects of El Niño.

Or counting penguins to help scientists better protect them.

Those are all on one of the most prominent citizen science platforms, called Zooniverse, but there are a ton of others, too.

Oh, and btw, you don't have to worry about messing up, because several people see each image. Studies show that if you pool the opinions of however many regular people (different by field), it matches the accuracy rate of a trained scientist in the field.

--

I spent a lot of time doing this when I was really badly injured and housebound, and it was so good for me to be able to HELP and DO SOMETHING, even when I was in too much pain to leave my bed. So if you are chronically ill/disabled/for whatever reason can't participate or volunteer for things in person, I highly highly recommend.

Next time you wish you could do something - anything - to help

Remember that actually, you can. And help with some science.

[withbriefthanksgiving]

The director of the New York Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights of the UN (UN OHCHR), Craig Mokhiber, has resigned in a letter dated 28 October 2023

the resignation letter can be found embedded in this tweet by Rami Atari (@.Raminho) dated 31 October 2023.

The letters are here:

Transcription:

United Nations | Nations Unies

HEADQUARTERS I SIEGE I NEW YORK, NY 10017

28 October 2023

Dear High Commissioner,

This will be my last official communication to you as Director of the New York Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.

I write at a moment of great anguish for the world, including for many of our colleagues. Once again, we are seeing a genocide unfolding before our eyes, and the Organization that we serve appears powerless to stop it. As someone who has investigated human rights in Palestine since the 1980s, lived in Gaza as a UN human rights advisor in the 1990s, and carried out several human rights missions to the country before and since, this is deeply personal to me.

I also worked in these halls through the genocides against the Tutsis, Bosnian Muslims, the Yazidi, and the Rohingya. In each case, when the dust settled on the horrors that had been perpetrated against defenseless civilian populations, it became painfully clear that we had failed in our duty to meet the imperatives of prevention of mass atrocites, of protection of the vulnerable, and of accountability for perpetrators. And so it has been with successive waves of murder and persecution against the Palestinians throughout the entire life of the UN.

High Commissioner, we are failing again.

As a human rights lawyer with more than three decades of experience in the field, I know well that the concept of genocide has often been subject to political abuse. But the current wholesale slaughter of the Palestinian people, rooted in an ethno-nationalist settler colonial ideology, in continuation of decades of their systematic persecution and purging, based entirely upon their status as Arabs, and coupled with explicit statements of intent by leaders in the Israeli government and military, leaves no room for doubt or debate. In Gaza, civilian homes, schools, churches, mosques, and medical institutions are wantonly attacked as thousands of civilians are massacred. In the West Bank, including occupied Jerusalem, homes are seized and reassigned based entirely on race, and violent settler pogroms are accompanied by Israeli military units. Across the land, Apartheid rules.

This is a text-book case of genocide. The European, ethno-nationalist, settler colonial project in Palestine has entered its final phase, toward the expedited destruction of the last remnants of indigenous Palestinian life in Palestine. What's more, the governments of the United States, the United Kingdom, and much of Europe, are wholly complicit in the horrific assault. Not only are these governments refusing to meet their treaty obligations "to ensure respect" for the Geneva Conventions, but they are in fact actively arming the assault, providing economic and intelligence support, and giving political and diplomatic cover for Israel's atrocities.

Volker Turk, High Commissioner for Human Rights Palais Wilson, Geneva

In concert with this, western corporate media, increasingly captured and state-adjacent, are in open breach of Article 20 of the ICCPR, continuously dehumanizing Palestinians to facilitate the genocide, and broadcasting propaganda for war and advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility, and violence. US-based social media companies are suppressing the voices of human rights defenders while amplifying pro-Israel propaganda. Israel lobby online-trolls and GONGOS are harassing and smearing human rights defenders, and western universities and employers are collaborating with them to punish those who dare to speak out against the atrocities. In the wake of this genocide, there must be an accounting for these actors as well, just as there was for radio Mules Collins in Rwanda.

In such circumstances, the demands on our organization for principled and effective action are greater than ever. But we phave not met the challenge. The protective enforcement power Security Council has again been blocked by US intransigence, the SG [UN Secretary General] is under assault for the mildest of protestations, and our human rights mechanisms are under sustained slanderous attack by an organized, online impunity network.

Decades of distraction by the illusory and largely disingenuous promises of Oslo have diverted the Organization from its core duty to defend international law, international human rights, and the Charter itself. The mantra of the "two-state solution" has become an open joke in the corridors of the UN, both for its utter impossibility in fact, and for its total failure to account for the inalienable human rights of the Palestinian people. The so-called "Quartet" has become nothing more than a fig leaf for inaction and for subservience to a brutal status quo. The (US-scripted) deference to "agreements between the parties themselves" (in place of international law) was always a transparent slight-of-hand, designed to reinforce the power of Israel over the rights of the occupied and dispossessed Palestinians.

High Commissioner, I came to this Organization first in the 1980s, because I found in it a principled, norm-based institution that was squarely on the side of human rights, including in cases where the powerful US, UK, and Europe were not on our side. While my own government, its subsidiarity institutions, and much of the US media were still supporting or justifying South African apartheid, Israeli oppression, and Central American death squads, the UN was standing up for the oppressed peoples of those lands. We had international law on our side. We had human rights on our side. We had principle on our side. Our authority was rooted in our integrity. But no more.

In recent decades, key parts of the UN have surrendered to the power of the US, and to fear of the Israel Lobby, to abandon these principles, and to retreat from international law itself. We have lost a lot in this abandonment, not least our own global credibility. But the Palestinian people have sustained the biggest losses as a result of our failures. It is a stunning historic irony that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted in the same year that the Nakba was perpetrated against the Palestinian people. As we commemorate the 75th Anniversary of the UDHR, we would do well to abandon the old cliché that the UDHR was born out of the atrocities that proceeded it, and to admit that it was born alongside one of the most atrocious genocides of the 20th Century, that of the destruction of Palestine. In some sense, the framers were promising human rights to everyone, except the Palestinian people. And let us remember as well, that the UN itself carries the original sin of helping to facilitate the dispossession of the Palestinian people by ratifying the European settler colonial project that seized Palestinian land and turned it over to the colonists. We have much for which to atone.

But the path to atonement is clear. We have much to learn from the principled stance taken in cities around the world in recent days, as masses of people stand up against the genocide, even at risk of beatings and arrest. Palestinians and their allies, human rights defenders of every stripe, Christian and Muslim organizations, and progressive Jewish voices saying "not in our name", are all leading the way. All we have to do is to follow them.

Yesterday, just a few blocks from here, New York's Grand Central Station was completely taken over by thousands of Jewish human rights defenders standing in solidarity with the Palestinian people and demanding an end to Israeli tyranny (many risking arrest, in the process). In doing so, they stripped away in an instant the Israeli hasbara propaganda point (and old antisemitic trope) that Israel somehow represents the Jewish people. It does not. And, as such, Israel is solely responsible for its crimes. On this point, it bears repeating, in spite of Israel lobby smears to the contrary, that criticism of Israel's human rights violations is not antisemitic, any more than criticism of Saudi violations is Islamophobic, criticism of Myanmar violations is anti-Buddhist, or criticism of Indian violations is anti-Hindu. When they seek to silence us with smears, we must raise our voice, not lower it. I trust you will agree, High Commissioner, that this is what speaking truth to power is all about.

But I also find hope in those parts of the UN that have refused to compromise the Organization's human rights principles in spite of enormous pressures to do so. Our independent special rapporteurs, commissions of enquiry, and treaty body experts, alongside most of our staff, have continued to stand up for the human rights of the Palestinian people, even as other parts of the UN (even at the highest levels) have shamefully bowed their heads to power. As the custodians of the human rights norms and standards, OHCHR. has a particular duty to defend those standards. Our job, I believe, is to make our voice heard, from the Secretary-General to the newest UN recruit, and horizontally across the wider UN system, incisting that the human rights of the Palestinian people are not up for debate, negotiation, or compromise anywhere under the blue flag.

What, then, would a UN-norm-based position look like? For what would we work if we were true to our rhetorical admonitions about human rights and equality for all, accountability for perpetrators, redress for victims, protection of the vulnerable, and empowerment for rights-holders, all under the rule of law? The answer, I believe, is simple—if we have the clarity to see beyond the propagandistic smokescreens that distort the vision of justice to which we are sworn, the courage to abandon fear and deference to powerful states, and the will to truly take up the banner of human rights and peace. To be sure, this is a long-term project and a steep climb. But we must begin now or surrender to unspeakable horror. I see ten essential points:

Legitimate action: First, we in the UN must abandon the failed (and largely disingenuous) Oslo paradigm, its illusory two-state solution, its impotent and complicit Quartet, and its subjugation of international law to the dictates of presumed political expediency. Our positions must be unapologetically based on international human rights and international law.

Clarity of Vision: We must stop the pretense that this is simply a conflict over land or religion between two warring parties and admit the reality of the situation in which a disproportionately powerful state is colonizing, persecuting, and dispossessing an indigenous population on the basis of their ethnicity.

One State based on human rights: We must support the establishment of a single, democratic, secular state in all of historic Palestine, with equal rights for Christians, Muslims, and Jews, and, therefore, the dicmantling of the deeply racist, settler-colonial project and an end to apartheid across the land.

Fighting Apartheid: We must redirect all UN efforts and resources to the struggle against apartheid, just as we did for South Africa in the 1970s, 80s, and early 90s.

Return and Compensation: We must reaffirm and insist on the right to return and full compensation for all Palestinians and their families currently living in the occupied territories, in Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, and in the diaspora across the globe.

Truth and Justice: We must call for a transitional justice process, making full use of decades of accumulated UN investigations, enquiries, and reports, to document the truth, and to ensure accountability for all perpetrators, redress for all victims, and remedies for documented injustices.

Protection: We must press for the deployment of a well-resourced and strongly mandated UN protection force with a sustained mandate to protect civilians from the river to the sea.

Disarmament: We must advocate for the removal and destruction of Israel's massive stockpiles of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, lest the conflict lead to the total destruction of the region and, possibly, beyond.

Mediation: We must recognize that the US and other western powers are in fact not credible mediators, but rather actual parties to the conflict who are complicit with Israel in the violation of Palestinian rights, and we must engage them as such.

Solidarity: We must open our doors (and the doors of the SG) wide to the legions of Palestinian, Israeli, Jewish, Muslim, and Christian human rights defenders who are standing in solidarity with the people of Palestine and their human rights and stop the unconstrained flow of Israel lobbyists to the offices of UN leaders, where they advocate for continued war, persecution, apartheid, and impunity, and smear our human rights defenders for their principled defense of Palestinian rights.

This will take years to achieve, and western powers will fight us every step of the way, so we must be steadfast. In the immediate term, we must work for an immediate ceasefire and an end to the longstanding siege on Gaza, stand up against the ethnic cleansing of Gaza, Jerusalem, and the West Bank (and elsewhere), document the genocidal assault in Gaza, help to bring massive humanitarian aid and reconstruction to the Palestinians, take care of our traumatized colleagues and their families, and fight like hell for a principled approach in the UN's political offices.

The UN's failure in Palestine thus far is not a reason for us to withdraw. Rather it should give us the courage to abandon the failed paradigm of the past, and fully embrace a more principled course. Let us, as OHCHR, boldly and proudly join the anti-apartheid movement that is growing all around the world, adding our logo to the banner of equality and human rights for the Palestinian people. The world is watching. We will all be accountable for where we stood at this crucial moment in history. Let us stand on the side of justice.

I thank you, High Commissioner, Volker, for hearing this final appeal from my desk. I will leave the Office in a few days for the last time, after more than three decades of service. But please do not hesitate to reach out if I can be of assistance in the future.

Sincerely,

Craig Mokhiber

End of transcription.

Emphasis (bolding) is my own. I have added links, where relevant, to explanations of concepts the former Director refers to.

[the-garbanzo-annex-jr]

by Lincoln Brown

Beckett Law, a religious freedom advocacy group, has taken up the cause of three Jewish students at UCLA. The students claim that in the wake of the October 7 terrorist attack on Israel, they faced mounting antisemitism, which included barring them from access to areas of the campus. The students are also represented by Clement & Murphy, PLLC.

In the lawsuit, Frankel v. The Regents of the University of California, the plaintiffs claim that pro-Hamas/anti-Israel protesters set up barricades on the Los Angeles campus, effectively creating a "Jewish Exclusion Zone." Beckett Law states that after creating the encampment, protesters not only constructed barriers but also linked arms to prevent Jewish students from accessing the most popular areas on campus. They also imposed an ideological test, and those whose views were deemed to be sufficiently anti-Israel were issued wristbands and allowed to pass unmolested through the "checkpoints."  

By contrast, Beckett law says that Jewish students were harassed and even assaulted. Law student Yitzchok Frankel was forced to find other ways to reach his classes because his route was blocked by the exclusion zone. Sophomore Joshua Ghayoum could not attend classes or study sessions because of the zone and the antisemitic activities on campus. Additionally, he was forced to listen to chants of "death to the Jews" and "death to Israel." Eden Shemuelian had trouble getting to her final exams because of the zones and had to listen to the vitriol from the encampment as she tried to study. These, said Beckett Law, are just three examples of the problems faced by Jewish students at UCLA.

Mark Rienzi, president and CEO of Becket, stated:

If masked agitators had excluded any other marginalized group at UCLA, Governor Newsom rightly would have sent in the National Guard immediately. But UCLA instead caved to the anti-Semitic activists and allowed its Jewish students to be segregated from the heart of their own campus. That is a profound and illegal failure of leadership. This is America in 2024—not Germany in 1939. It is disgusting that an elite American university would let itself devolve into a hotbed of antisemitism. UCLA’s administration should have to answer for allowing the Jew Exclusion Zone and promise that Jews will never again be segregated on campus.

The suit notes:

Defendants have deprived Plaintiffs of the free exercise and enjoyment of religion without discrimination or preference, as secured by the California Constitution, through a policy and practice that treats Plaintiffs differently than similarly situated non-Jewish individuals because Plaintiffs are Jewish.

Defendants furthered no legitimate or compelling state interest by engaging in this conduct.

Defendants failed to tailor their actions narrowly to serve any such interest.

As a result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiffs have been injured by losing access to educational opportunities, losing access to library and classroom facilities, losing in-person learning opportunities, losing the ability to prepare for exams, being denied equal participation in the life of the university, suffering emotional and physical stress that has diverted time, attention, and focus from study, and by other harms.

In addition to seeking compensation for damages, the primary goal of the lawsuit is to hold the leadership of the University of California accountable and ensure that such a situation never arises again.

As usual, "never again" is here and now. The fact that these "students" take a great deal of pride in slinging the term "Nazi" at anyone with which they disagree yet use tactics that echo those of the Third Reich is ironic and chilling. But their savage nature can be attributed, at least in part, to those who educated them. 

Given that, one must ask if the regents of the University of California were merely caving to mob pressure. Did they turn a blind eye to the madness out of fear or because of the optics? Ideally, there should be nothing wrong with discussing the war and even debating whether or not Israel's response to the Hamas attack has been proportionate. 

The regents, president, vice-president, and chancellors never stopped to think, "Gee, it seems to be getting awfully brownshirty around here." And if they did, they were too cowardly or indoctrinated to say a word.

[eretzyisrael]

by POTKIN AZARMEHR

‘Pro-Palestine’ protests have become a near-weekly occurrence across Britain. Since Hamas’s 7 October massacre, regular marches have been drawing in a growing number of young people, marked by passionate advocacy and fervent slogans. Yet despite their zeal, many of these protesters lack a fundamental understanding of the conflict they are so vociferously decrying.

In the past six months, I have attended many of these marches. Having engaged with numerous protesters, I have noticed a startling disconnect between their strong opinions on the Gaza conflict and their shaky grasp of basic facts about it. Among the most perplexing are the LGBT and feminist groups (the ‘Queers for Palestine’ types) who flirt with justifying Hamas’s atrocities. This is a bewildering alliance, given that Hamas’s Islamist ideology is clearly antithetical to the rights and values these groups claim to champion. Its reactionary agenda is profoundly hostile to women’s rights and LGBT individuals.

Protesters seem eager to make excuses for Hamas, but are conspicuously uninformed about exactly what or who this terrorist group represents. On 18 May, during a protest at Piccadilly Circus in London, I spoke to demonstrators who firmly believed that Hamas represents all Palestinians. When I questioned a well-educated participant about the last Palestinian election, she was unaware that none had occurred since 2006, when Hamas gained power in Gaza.

It wasn’t just young people who were uninformed. An older woman with an American accent, seemingly a veteran protester, admitted she knew that Hamas was linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, but had no deeper knowledge of its ideology or history. Others, such as members of revolutionary socialist groups, displayed similar gaps in understanding, unaware of critical events like the 1979 Iranian Revolution.

That revolution gave birth to the Islamic Republic of Iran, a theocratic regime that brutally oppresses its own citizens. It also sponsors Islamist groups like Hamas. I left Iran for the UK not long after that regime began and have spent years resisting its religious extremism and ruthless political intolerance. Protesters were not only unaware of these facts about the Iranian regime, but also ill-informed about the struggle against it, such as the ‘Woman, Life, Freedom’ protests against the government that began in 2022.

One particularly telling conversation involved a man advocating for a ‘Global Intifada’ to replace capitalism with socialism. When asked about successful socialist models, he was unfamiliar with the Israeli kibbutzim, one of history’s few successful egalitarian experiments. His ignorance of these communal settlements in Israel, built by socialist Jewish immigrants, was all too typical.

Perhaps the most telling moment was captured by commentator Konstantin Kisin earlier this year, when he encountered a young man holding a ‘Socialist Intifada’ placard. The protester admitted he had no idea what this meant and that he had taken the sign simply because it was handed to him.

Reflecting on past movements, such as the American anti-Vietnam War protests of the 1960s and the British Anti-Apartheid Movement of the 1980s, one can’t help but note a stark contrast. Protesters then were generally well-informed about their causes. Today’s pro-Palestine protests, however, seem to be driven more by unthinking fervour than by an understanding of the issues at hand.

Throughout all these protests, I am yet to encounter a single participant who condemns Hamas or carries a placard denouncing its terrorism. This not only undermines the protesters’ cause, but also risks aligning them with groups whose values fundamentally oppose the very rights and freedoms they claim to support. It appears that today’s young protesters are high on ideology, but woefully thin on facts.

Potkin Azarmehr is an Iranian activist and journalist who left Iran for the UK after the revolution of 1979.

[olderthannetfic]

https://www.tumblr.com/olderthannetfic/768686563949428736/honestly-i-do-kinda-think-the-discussion-around?source=share

idk, I think the "what's the alternative" argument still misses the point somewhat though.

for me, the point of "my body my choice" is literally just that - forcing a pregnancy on someone that they don't want (or forcing them to abort one they do want, for that matter) is SUCH a massive violation of bodily autonomy that the "reasons" for doing that don't matter. pregnancy fundamentally changes your body and affects everything about your health for 9 months. pregnancies that go wrong can threaten the life of the pregnant person AND their baby. that shouldn't be something people have to go through if they on board with it, period. for the same reasons you can't be forced to donate any part of your body if you aren't okay with doing that, even if you could do fine without it and the other person would die.

that's why as a disabled person myself i have no patience for the people who cry about "disability abortions" or compare it to eugenics. because sorry but people with ableist beliefs still deserve bodily autonomy, and it's just as much of a violation of their autonomy - and therefore their most basic human rights - to force them to go through with a pregnancy because their reasons make YOU, a person who is not going through that pregnancy, feel troubled. as i've seen posts on here say, you can't "perform eugenics on your own uterus." you are not obligated to give birth to any person you don't want to, and that is fundamentally different than a government or society killing people for who they are. same with people who want to abort because of the baby's sex. same with people who want to abort because, idk, they were given an expected date in the first week of january and they don't want their baby to be a capricorn. (i know this sounds like a joke but i have friends who are a hippie lesbian couple who announced the birth of their son with "it's a [his expected astrological sign]!" which was really funny because he was born a couple weeks early and then turned out to be the previous sign. so, people who take astrology way too seriously DO have babies)

i think that unfortunately and especially for a lot of people with conservative upbringings, a lot of people tend to see a hypothetical fetus with some identity in common with them and project themselves into that situation. the "what if i had been aborted?" thing but somewhat less self-aware about it. some feminist writing in the 80s talked about men doing this with aborted fetuses, seeing themselves as a male fetus being "killed" by a woman, but i think it's clear some women do it too when they share a (potential) identity category with a fetus. and i think the bigger issue here is that it erases the pregnant person. even the argument anon is making here, which again they're right about, still focuses on the outcomes for the baby rather than the person carrying them. and i think you "get" pro-choice politics better when you make a point of centering the person who is pregnant, and resisting any framing that (consciously or not) frames them as just a place where the baby grows. for instance, as a disabled person, my disability comes with a low pain tolerance that is a big part of why i never want to be pregnant. there are a lot of disabled people where that disability interacts negatively with their pregnancy in some way, and disabled pregnant people are usually among the first whose rights anti-choice people try to take away, whether it's their right to choose an abortion, or right to procreate in the first place, or right to raise the child they give birth to. i just really cannot take your disability rights advocacy very seriously when "disability + abortion" for you is only ever about the fetus and never about the pregnant person! (or also, when people fearmonger about autism screening for abortion. both because a lot of those people seem to think that's currently happening when it's not, but also everything we know about autism so far suggests it's extremely unlikely to be something we can ever detect with precision in utero. starting with that it's probably not caused by purely by genetic factors in the first place, and also that it's likely not just one specific thing caused by one gene. they're able to screen for down syndrome because it involves an extra chromosome, which is extremely easy to detect. also, sidenote, before people go into shaming people who abort fetuses with trisomy 21, keep in mind that there's a lot more to down syndrome than intellectual disability, including most people who have it having life-threatening heart problems that tend to keep them in the hospital for the first several months or even years of life. there are a lot of reasons people don't want their children to go through that, especially people without consistent access to health care, that is not just "ableism" toward the intellectually disabled.) geezus, this got long. sorry about that. i guess i just had a lot of thoughts about it, hope they were enlightening enough to anyone reading along to be worth the verbosity! but they were a lot of what convinced me when i used to be one of those people who was uncomfortable with "disability abortions"

--

Well said.

I think it's important that we let ourselves have our emotions about other people's choices without thinking they're a basis for policy. What if my child needs my kidney? Should I be legally obligated to donate? People will think I'm an asshole if I don't, but should I be obligated to?

[thepro-lifemovement]

“Since 2019 I have endured six workplace investigations because of my advocacy and research on abortion and in every investigation I have been cleared of misconduct,”

Howe stated that she had endured six separate workplace investigations since 2019 regarding her pro-life research. She was found innocent of misconduct in each case, including the most recent investigation launched at the beginning of the year, which determined she was innocent of any breach in the Australian Code for Responsible Research.

Seems universities really don’t like when you conduct research on abortion if it’s not going to swing in favor of the pro-abortion stance.

[shadowqueenjude]

Chaorene vs Feysand Pregnancy

A lot of people have pointed out that Feyre’s pregnancy trope is awful, but I haven’t seen anyone compare it to Yrene’s yet and I think it would help a lot of people understand the countless problems with it. First let’s discuss Yrene’s pregnancy: Yrene's baby was a regular human baby so it carried minimal risk to her life. Actually, she hid her pregnancy initially because she didn't want Chaol to worry, but clearly, the baby was entirely her choice. But even after Chaol found out, it didn't stop Yrene from healing a bunch of people on a daily basis, including removing Valg from human bodies. Chaol had an insane amount of faith in her, so much faith that even though he was worried as hell, he trusted Yrene to take on the DEMON KING Erawan which she did and won because she is a baddie. Even Lorcan points out that he's "not sure Yrene is human" because she's such a queen. Clearly, being pregnant didn't stop her from taking action. Now let's discuss Feyre's pregnancy: Feyre was complaining about being seen as a "trophy wife" by Tamlin (I just don't see this at all but go figure), yet after being constantly objectified by Rhysand, being sexually assaulted, and playing his whore, she finds herself a year later isolated from everybody, forced to walk around with a heavy shield and unable to go anywhere without heavy protection, forced to hide her pregnancy from everyone until it was "deemed safe," and she was unaware of the fact that her baby will most likely kill her. Rhysand threatened Nesta into not telling and when she did tell her (as was in her right), he nearly killed her. Not to mention Rhysand was acting like a possessive asshole, antagonizing everybody who got anywhere near her. But canonically, Feyre is very powerful. So why the hell doesn't he trust her? Why does he isolate her? Yet I see Chaol get an insane amount of hate from this fandom and Rhysand doesn't get nearly enough. Yrene's pregnancy is inspiring. Feyre's pregnancy is the upholding of toxic masculinity and underlies the major problems with pro-choice advocacy. It's amazing that both are written by the same author. But it shows that SJM is capable of writing a proper story if she actually tries.

[blushweddinggowns]

A Deep Dive into the Munson Marriage: Just Who is Steve Harrington?

By Fredricka Keith

The world has somehow been sleeping on the end of an era. The notorious bachelor Eddie Munson is married. But how did it happen? Who did he fall for? Surprisingly enough, those questions were very hard to answer, despite Munson’s past predilection to be an open book. 

He has been uncharacteristically tight-lipped about his new beau. Tight enough for the majority of his fans to be just as shocked as the general public at the new announcement. Even so, Steve Harrington hasn’t managed to stay completely out of the public eye.

The thirty-three year old has a dismal social media presence, but lucky enough for us, his husband and sister are much more giving. Though Eddie’s Instagram and Twitter mentions of his husband were quickly found to be useless in getting to know the man, despite the number of posts associated with his name. It probably shouldn’t have been surprising, considering how they were nearly all nonsensical compliments, written straight from his stream of consciousness. 

His sister, Robin Buckley, was better, especially considering that she’s been using the same Instagram account since 2012. Through her, we received a little more insight on the man. He had a penance for camping and exercise, often ready and able to drag both his sister and husband with him. According to a Birthday celebration post in 2017 it was mentioned his favorite movie is The Thing (1986) and his favorite cake flavor was southern caramel. 

As for his own career, Robin’s BrotherBartender hashtag was of some use, at the least showing us that the man was capable of creating gorgeous drinks, with a long past career in bartending. But that was it, the only information that was up for grabs.

While the newly Steve Munson has been to a number of events with his husband, he still remains an enigma. The only thing his red carpet showings have proved was that the former Harrington was a master at directing attention away from himself, and his husband was incredibly protective of his privacy. There have been many interviews cut short due to questions he found unacceptable, which was a brand new behavior for the star. His days of being an open book are officially finished. 

But the plot thickens. 

While neither Steve nor Eddie are open for insight, a thorough background check did reveal some interesting information. Surprisingly enough, marrying a rockstar was not Mr. Buckley-Munson’s first experience with the upper echelon. 

Through anonymous inside sources we were able to find that the Harrington last name was familiar for a reason, outside of Steve. His parents, celebrity lawyer Richard Harrington, along with his estranged ex-wife, Adriana Harrington, made headlines in 2012 due to their contentious divorce.

For those not in the know, the two C-list celebrities are most well-known for their continued campaigns against the LGBTQ community, as well as Richard Harrington’s unsavory choice of clients. Harvey Weinstein, Jeffery Epstein, Mitch McConnell, along with his earlier aid work on the OJ Simpson trial. 

His mother, Adriana, while not directly working with some of the most despised men in the country, is famous in her own right. The fifty-one year old has nearly two hundred followers on Instagram, her posts consistently centering around the sanctity of marriage, pro-life advocacy, and bible quotes. 

With this in mind, it is extremely hard to see how their son ended up in not only a gay marriage, but with someone who is flagantly against every single thing they stand for. Though after reaching out to his parents for comment, the picture of how they came together becomes more clear. 

Richard Harrington initially denied all allegations of having any children with his previous wife, despite direct evidence to the contrary. That was until Adriana Harrington settled the score, posting a series of photos of what appeared to be a young Steve Harrington alongside his father. Along with a caption reading: It doesn't surprise me that a liar would lie about his own son. But unfortunately, yes, Steve Harrington was ours. 

Though when asked for clarification on her own relationship with their son, she did not hesitate to reiterate that she had no regrets regarding how their relationship ended. 

“While I wish Steven had taken the tough love he was given to improve himself, I can not say that I’m surprised that he has turned out this way. It’s unfortunate that his deviant behavior has escalated to the level of making a mockery out of the institution of marriage, but that is out of my control. All I can do is rest easy knowing I tried to give him the best life possible. Him throwing that chance away is not of my concern.”

It was an odd choice of phrasing, considering how “throwing” his life away equated to marrying a multi-millionaire. When asked just what tough love she was referring to, she clarified: 

“Steven was given a choice to get help for his affliction or be completely on his own. He chose to be completely on his own. Whatever happened after that choice is a reflection on him. Not me.”

Though when further pressed on just when Steven was given this “choice” she only mentioned that he was “of age” but admitted he was still a teenager at the time of his disownment. 

When asked for comment after Adriana’s claims, the Harrington firm provided the following information:

“Richard Harrington has not spoken to his alleged son, Steven Harrington, legal name Steve Buckley-Munson for nearly fifteen years. While his name is present on Mr. Munson’s birth certificate, the biological relationship between the two has never been confirmed. Considering Adriana Harrington’s past history of infidelity, it is quite likely that there is no actual relation between the two men.

With that acknowledged, Mr. Harrignton would like to reiterate that he has no ties to Steve Buckley-Munson, Edward Munson, Corroded Coffin, or their label Virgin Records. He is a dedicated family man whose loyalties lie with his new wife, his two beautiful young children, and his clients. Those areas are where his focus will always be, first and foremost.”

It is a wonder that such a well-matched duo could ever end in divorce. But their answers only led to more questions. How could Steve Buckley-Munson have a sister if he was disowned as a teenager?

From the last chapter of this (finished) fic!

[notaplaceofhonour]

Hey, sorry if this is like an offensive or bad question, I just saw something and wanted to ask someone who I know knows more about this than me. /Nfta if it's like uncomfortable or anything ofc, I'm asking this in good faith.

Can someone who is not Jewish be zionist? Like could a white, Christian american be zionist? I know obviously that the term has been warped and made into something it is not at all by people who are, well antisemitic, and that the original definition isn't at all what people who say "zionists dni" mean, but can someone who is goyim be zionist under the more correct definitions?

Not at all bad or offensive!

To start with, I want to clarify that I’m a non-Zionist, so take my opinion with a grain of salt. However, the reason I’m not a Zionist (the way I would define it) is relevant to answering your question, so hopefully it helps.

Some Jews may define it differently, but to me, Zionism—in the political sense—is not merely the belief that Jews should have national self-determination & safety in Israel (though that is the core of all Zionism movements), but a movement characterized by political action to that end, which is actively involved in the development or enrichment of Jewish communities & national identity in Israel. I don’t live in Israel; I’m not a member of any Zionist organizations; I’m not really involved in Israeli politics beyond Having Opinions��️ about the parts of it that are relevant to my community, offering critical support for their peace camp, or debunking misinformation; and I’m not in any way responsible for cultural or national development/enrichment in Israel. Thus, I’m not a Zionist.

(And obviously I am not in favor of any of the evil things goyim seem to think Zionism “actually” means: I’m not anti-Palestinian, anti-Arab, anti-Muslim, pro-Israeli expansionism, pro-ethnic cleansing, pro-genocide, pro-colonialism, or Jewish supremacist, and I am every bit as in favor of Palestinian self-determination & safety as I am in favor of the same for Israelis. So I’m not a “Zionist” even in that warped & inaccurate sense.)

Goyim who aren’t actively involved in Zionist political action likewise wouldn’t be Zionists, but I do think it needs to be further clarified that—because Zionism is at its core characterized by Jewish self-determination—any goyish movement or organization that calls itself Zionist while sidelining Jews or subverting Jewish self-determination is not actually Zionist.

For instance: a lot of Christian Zionism, especially the Apocalyptic “End Times” Prophecy sort, is actually about “philosemitic” fetishization of Jews for American political & Christian religious purposes, based around the certainty that Jews will convert to Christianity & Israel will be a Christian theocracy, not actually about uplifting Jewish self-determination. I would not consider “Christian Zionist” lobbying from organizations like CUFI to be authentically Zionist.

That doesn’t mean Christians & other goyim can’t be Zionists. But the test of whether they are is whether they’re actively putting material support behind Jewish self-determination & not, say, simply trying to trojan horse themselves into controlling the land.*

Something that might help is to think of it along similar lines to the word “feminist”. The Feminist movement was started by women to address issues that most centrally affect women. Men can be feminists, but their feminism is contingent on their support for women’s freedom, equality, and self-advocacy. A man who simply thinks “yeah sure women should be equal” but does nothing to make sure women in his life or broader society are, or who only does/says all the right things to exploit women, isn’t really much of a feminist.

A couple complicating factors are that a) Zionism, as a national movement for self-determination, is much more specific than Feminism, a general movement for women’s equality, and b) the goy/jew ratio (98.8% vs. 0.2% of the world’s population) is a lot more skewed in goyim’s favor than the male/female one (which is nearly 50/50). Both of these add up to my personal opinion that it’s even more crucial to be more selective in who gets called a Zionist than a Feminist.

but TL; DR: Ultimately, if someone’s genuinely supportive of Jewish national self-determination in Israel, I don’t see a reason they shouldn’t be allowed to call themselves a Zionist, as long as they aren’t trying to dictate what that should look like to Jews. But I’m not Zionist myself, and opinions may vary, so I’d ask some Jews who self-identify as Zionist.

*Lest this be misunderstood as a “No True Scotsman”, I’d like to clarify even further: I’m not talking about merely being ineffective or failing at delivering on the promise of self-determination, or failing to be good allies, I’m talking about instances where the goal is to exploit Jews and actively opposed to Jewish self-determination, such as the goal of making Israel a Supersessionist Christian Theocracy.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Judd Legum and Rebecca Crosby at Popular Information:

This November, Florida residents will decide whether to amend their state constitution to protect reproductive rights, overturning the state's near-total abortion ban after six weeks of pregnancy. If Amendment 4 passes, the following text would be added to the Florida Constitution: "No law shall prohibit, penalize, delay, or restrict abortion before viability or when necessary to protect the patient’s health, as determined by the patient’s healthcare provider."  The primary group supporting Amendment 4, Floridians Protecting Freedom, is running television ads supporting its passage. One such ad is a first-personal narrative of a woman named Caroline who was diagnosed with brain cancer while pregnant with her second child. "The doctors knew that if I did not end my pregnancy, I would lose my baby, I would lose my life, and my daughter would lose her mom," Caroline says in the ad. "Florida has now banned abortion, even in cases like mine." Caroline urges voters to support Amendment 4 to "protect women like me." 

On October 3, the Florida Department of Health sent a letter to Mark Higgins, the General Manager of WFLA, Tampa's NBC affiliate. The letter, sent by Florida Department of Health General Counsel John Wilson, claimed that airing the ad violates Florida law. Wilson cites Florida's law against "sanitary nuisance," which prohibits "the commission of any act… by which… the health and lives of individuals… may be endangered." Wilson argues that WFLA's decision to air the ad could "threaten or impair the health and lives of women." Wilson advised Higgins that, now that he has been notified that the ad is creating a "sanitary nuisance," WFLA must stop airing it within 24 hours. Failure to do so, Wilson writes, would be a crime punishable by up to 60 days in prison under Florida law. The letter was first reported by investigative reporter Jason Garcia. 

Aaron Terr, Director of Public Advocacy for the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), a non-profit dedicated to preserving free speech, told Popular Information that the Florida Department of Health letter stretches "the meaning of sanitary nuisance beyond recognition." The statute deals with issues like "untreated or improperly treated human waste," "[t]he keeping of diseased animals," and the "causing of any condition capable of breeding flies, mosquitoes, or other arthropods capable of transmitting diseases." While the statute includes a catch-all for "any other condition determined to be a sanitary nuisance," there is no mention of political ads.

Floridians Protecting Freedom, in an October 4 letter to WFLA, rejects the Florida Department of Health's contention that the ad is false. In the letter, Floridians Protecting Freedom notes that Caroline "was diagnosed with Stage 4 brain cancer at 20 weeks pregnant" and "the diagnosis was terminal." Florida's Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) has advised that abortion is permitted after six weeks of pregnancy only if there is "an immediate threat to the pregnant person's life." The AHCA has said that premature rupture of membranes, ectopic pregnancy, and molar pregnancy meet that standard. None of those exceptions applied to Caroline. 

Fascist bully Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and his regime are threatening arrests of TV executives that dare to air the “Caroline” ad from pro-Amendment 4 group Floridians Protecting Freedom. This is all part of DeSantis’s war on freedom of speech and abortion rights.

[thebusylilbee]

A United Nations legal expert has called for Western media to be investigated over their role in “obscuring” news coverage of the clashes on Friday between Israeli forces posing as football fans and locals in the Dutch city of Amsterdam.

In a post on X, formerly Twitter, Francesca Albanese, the UN special rapporteur on the rights situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, said that Western media has repeatedly disseminated disinformation which has served to conceal the atrocities that were being carried out by the Israelis across the globe.

“Once again, Western media should be investigated for the role they are playing in obscuring Israel’s atrocities,” the Italian international lawyer said.

The legal scholar, researcher, and author specializing in human rights and Arab refugee issues said media figures who disseminate false news are complicit in Israeli crimes and should be held accountable.

“In other contexts, international tribunals have found media figures responsible for complicity, incitement, and other international crimes.”

The call by the UN expert came after some Western media outlets failed to report on or minimize the actions of the Israeli thugs posing as fans of Maccabi Tel Aviv ahead of and during the violence on Thursday and Friday.

Israeli thugs travelling to Amsterdam as football fans wage chaos and vandalism in the Dutch capital by committing acts of anti-Palestinian and anti-Arab violence.

Upon arriving at the Dutch capital ahead of the match, videos online showed so-called Israeli football fans tearing down Palestinian flags hung from residents’ homes.

In one video from the clashes, Israeli fans were heard singing, “Let the [Israeli army] win, and f*** the Arabs!” while another showed them tearing down a Palestinian flag from a building.

Maccabi faced Eredivisie side Ajax Amsterdam on Thursday, where they were thrashed 5-0 by the Dutch team in the city’s main arena and Ajax’s home stadium.

The impudent Israeli regime forces' brutal instincts intensified outside the Johan Cruyff Arena after the match, spreading to other areas, and inflicting heavy damage to the Dutch city.

Western media, however, cited pro-Israeli officials describing the clashes as “anti-Semitic” and claiming Israeli hooligans had been attacked for their “Jewishness.”

Six Israeli airplanes were dispatched to bring the hundreds of Israeli forces in Amsterdam back to Tel Aviv following the riots in the Dutch capital triggered by their racist behavior, reports said.

Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the Mossad spy agency were involved in the events.

Israel acts with impunity with the complicity of the United States, says the Cuban ambassador to Tehran, adding that every moment of impunity for action, passivity, double standards or silence will cost more innocent lives in the besieged Gaza Strip.

During the 2024 Paris Olympic Games, human rights advocacy groups had called for barring the Israelis from all sports events over the ruling by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) about the occupying regime’s barbaric crimes against Palestinians in the besieged Gaza Strip amid the Israelis ongoing genocidal war in the region, killing over 43,500 Palestinians.

Hundreds of Palestinian athletes have been killed since October 7, 2023, when the regime began waging the war in Gaza which it now extended to Lebanon.

Western governments’ support for the Israeli war machine and indifference to human life is the source of the Zionists' continued impunity, experts say.

[mariacallous]

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Building Back Together Communications Director Blake Goodman released the following statement on the 30th anniversary of the signing of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA):

“Today, we celebrate three decades of the Violence Against Women Act, a transformative piece of legislation that has saved countless women’s lives from dangerous, potentially deadly situations. “President Biden’s laser-focus commitment to ending domestic and intimate partner violence is nothing new. Thirty years ago, then-Senator Biden authored the original bill that would become the VAWA — pushing our nation’s representatives to recognize and finally deal with the scourge that is domestic and intimate partner violence. Now, he and Vice President Harris continue to lead the most pro-survivor administration in our nation’s history. Their unwavering dedication to strengthening and expanding the VAWA has resulted in groundbreaking protections for underserved communities, increased funding for life-saving services and a renewed national focus on preventing violence before it occurs. “From President Biden’s authorship of the original bill as a Senator to Vice President Harris’s tireless advocacy for women and survivors throughout her career, this administration’s commitment to ending gender-based violence is not just good policy — it’s personal. At Building Back Together, we stand proudly with President Biden, Vice President Harris and survivors across the nation in celebrating this anniversary. We recognize that while we’ve made tremendous strides, we remain committed to supporting the Biden-Harris Administration’s bold vision for a future free from gender-based violence — a future where every individual can live, work and thrive without fear.”

Thirty years on, VAWA has seen many significant successes in the fight against domestic and intimate partner violence:

VAWA has helped reduce intimate partner violence by 64% between 1993 and 2010.

Over $9 billion in federal grants have been awarded to support community-based organizations working to end violence against women.

The National Domestic Violence Hotline, established under VAWA, has answered over 7 million calls, texts, and chats since its inception.

The 2022 reauthorization expanded protections for BIPOC women, LGBTQ+ individuals and immigrant survivors.

The Biden-Harris Administration continues to build on VAWA’s legacy by:

Ending forced arbitration for sexual assault and harassment through the signing of the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021.

Signing the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, which narrows the “boyfriend loophole” by helping to keep guns out of the hands of domestic abusers by prohibiting people convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence crimes from possessing guns for 5 years.

Reforming the military justice system to address sexual assault, harrassment, and related crimes through the National Defense Authorization Act.

Strengthening regional leadership to prioritize the crisis of Missing or Murdered Indigenous people, including gender-based violence.

Supporting multinational efforts to address online harassment and abuse through the Global Partnership for Action on Gender-Based Online Harassment and Abuse.

Expanding national programs to combat human trafficking through the Department of Health and Human Services Innovation Challenge to Prevent Human Trafficking and the new National Human Trafficking Prevention Framework.

For more information on steps the Biden-Harris Administration has taken to prevent and respond to gender-based violence at home and abroad, see the White House’s Fact Sheet here.