#Reproductive Freedom for All Act

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

A bipartisan group of senators reintroduced a bill to codify abortion protections on Thursday following President Biden’s call on Congress to pass legislation ensuring abortion access in his State of the Union address.

Sens. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), Kyrsten Sinema (I-Ariz.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) reintroduced the Reproductive Freedom for All Act, which would block states from enacting laws that would impose an “undue burden” on previability abortions and protect access to contraception.

The Senators previously introduced the bill in August, with Kaine calling it a “bipartisan compromise” to ensure reproductive freedom.

Throughout 2022, Democratic attempts to advance legislation that would enshrine access to abortions into federal law failed to advance in the evenly split Senate. Republicans in support of abortion access objected to what they felt were over-encompassing bills, while moderate Democrats Sinema, who recently changed her party affiliation, and Sen. Joe Manchin (W.Va.) opposed abolishing the filibuster in order to pass the proposed laws.

During his State of the Union address on Tuesday, Biden urged Congress to “restore the right that was taken away in [the overturning of] Roe v. Wade.” He also made it clear that he would veto any federal abortion bans that reached his desk.

The House passed two bills last year aimed at protecting abortion access, the Women’s Health Protection Act and the Ensuring Women’s Right to Reproductive Freedom Act. No Republicans voted for the Women’s Health Protection Act, but a handful of GOP lawmakers joined with Democrats to vote for the latter bill, which protected the ability to travel out-of-state to obtain abortion services.

While Democrats have more votes in the Senate this time around, the bill is unlikely to pass the House, where Republicans control a 222-212 majority.

[robertreich]

How We Take Back the Supreme Court

Where do you see yourself in 2060? What about your kids or grandkids? Will Donald Trump be affecting your life even then?

Here’s why he might be.

This November, the future of the Supreme Court is on the ballot.

Trump appointed three justices in his first term — more than any president since Ronald Reagan. And thanks to them, Trump was able to get rid of Roe v. Wade, affirmative action, and gun safety laws — even after he left office.

If Trump is reelected, 76-year-old Justice Clarence Thomas and 74-year-old Justice Samuel Alito could retire, giving Trump a chance to appoint a fourth and fifth justice. That’s five out of nine justices. Trump would be the first president in more than a half century to appoint a majority of the Supreme Court.

And not just a "conservative" majority — but a MAGA majority that would work in lockstep with an authoritarian president.

Several other justices are also getting up there. Chief Justice John Roberts will turn 70 in 2025, and Justice Sonia Sotomayor will be 71. So it’s possible that Trump could even appoint a sixth (or even a seventh) justice.

If Trump sticks with appointing justices in their 40s, as he did with Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, his justices could dominate the court past the year 2060 — or longer if he appoints even younger justices.

In the court’s latest term, the extremists now dominating the bench made it harder to combat racial gerrymandering. They limited the power of federal agencies to implement health, safety, and environmental regulations. They ruled that homeless people can be punished for being homeless. They gave the greenlight for state and local politicians to accept bribes for past actions. And I didn’t even mention how the court granted presidents the power of kings by giving them broad immunity from prosecution.

All of this because one man, Donald Trump, was elected in 2016. If he’s reelected in 2024, just imagine the damage a MAGA supermajority Supreme Court could unleash.

Your remaining reproductive freedoms, marriage equality, gun reform, climate change policy, and what’s left of the Voting Rights Act…

Wherever you imagine yourself and your family forty years from now, you will still be feeling the effects of this year’s election.

[jessicalprice]

I think the thing that most Christian atheists who are rebelling against authoritarian Christian backgrounds don't get is why Jews remain Jewish.

Like, I get it, you engaged in your practices because you were told that God would punish you if you didn't, because you're told you're supposed to fear God.

(Incidentally, we don't even use the same language about this. The term that gets translated in most English bibles as "fear" is, like many classical Hebrew words, a lot more multivalent than the English term, and has more of a connotation of "awe." (See, for example, the Gilgamesh dream sequence: "Why am I trembling? No god passed this way." A god is something in whose wake one trembles.) It's what one feels when one is faced with something bigger than oneself, something overwhelming. For some people that may be fear of being harmed. For others it may be wonder or even ecstasy, standing outside oneself.)

But in 2023, Jews have the option (and, indeed, still the cultural pressure) to completely abandon Judaism. Very easily. We can, in fact, do it quite passively. If we're not actively trying to engage with it, it will very much drift away from us.

And it's not fear of divine punishment keeping most of us engaged.

The thing is, if you proved to me tomorrow that God doesn't exist, I'm not sure anything about my life or my practice would change. (I'm already agnostic, so *shrug*. I don't believe in a God-person. Sometimes I believe in a unity to reality, a life and a direction to it. Sometimes I don't. I just don't have the arrogance to think I understand definitively the way the universe does or doesn't work.) I still would celebrate Shabbat, I still wouldn't eat pork, I still would have a mezuzah on my doorway.

I do all that stuff because I'm Jewish, not because I think God will get mad if I don't. I do all that stuff because it's part of a cultural system that I see as wise and life-giving and therapeutic and worth maintaining.

And the thing is, the cultural system that Christian antitheists want us to assimilate into, under the guise of "getting rid of religion", is very much a white Protestant culture. It's not culturally neutral. It has practices, and it has a particular worldview, and it has cultural norms that are just as irrational as any other culture's.

It's also very telling that Christian antitheists purport to be harmed by Jews continuing to be Jewish. Why? We don't impose our norms on anyone else, and we overwhelmingly vote (and organize, and engage in activism) against the imposition of Christian "religious" norms, such as the curtailing of reproductive freedom, blue laws, etc.

So you're only "harmed" by our continued existence in the same way Christians purport to be harmed by it: by claiming that the very existence of a group that doesn't share your worldview and practices is somehow an act of oppression against you.

Which is, you know, white supremacist logic.

You're still upholding the logic of Jesus's genocidal, colonial Great Commission even though you supposedly don't believe in the god that ordered it anymore.

That's gotta be one of the saddest things I encounter among my fellow humans.

You took down all the crosses in the church of your mind and chucked them out the window, but you still refuse to step foot outside the church building, contenting yourself with claiming it's not a church, and firing out the windows at the synagogue and mosque down the road, the same way you used to.

[deadpresidents]

I just hope these next 4 years go by fast

This election isn't just about the next four years. With Trump in the White House and a Republican Senate at his side, the MAGA movement can pick up where they left off when it comes to packing the federal judiciary with right-wing judges who will control the Supreme Court and appellate courts throughout the country potentially for the rest of the lives of everyone reading this right now. It's the perfect recipe for them to continue stripping reproductive rights away from women nationwide and gives them the opportunity to turn their attention to the other issues that they have been dying to attack, from voting rights to gay marriage and every other extension of personal freedom that has been won by minorities and marginalized people in hard-fought battles over the past 60 years. This is the nightmare scenario that people have been warning folks about for the past few elections. It's here. And there isn't going to be a way to put the toothpaste back in the tube.

The consequences of this election will have a direct, negative impact on your life -- possibly on the entire remainder of your life. This country just re-elected a President with authoritarian tendencies who is the willing puppet of a dangerous Christian nationalist movement that figured out exactly how to manipulate him (through flattery) for their aims. They have created the perfect vehicle for a genuine cult of personality that they can use to achieve the goals they have been very clear about striving for over the past few years. And you can't blame anybody other than the American voters because they not only elected Trump, but they gave him a fucking mandate, with a Republican Senate and potentially a Republican House. They already have a right-wing dominated Supreme Court for the next few decades, and now they are going to ensure that the entire federal judiciary is in their control for years to come. And don't forget the fact that a few months ago, the Supreme Court handed down a decision that gave Presidents sweeping immunity for a broad (and conveniently undefined) range of "official" acts, so Trump is going to go into this second term knowing that not only does he not have to deal with the "guardrails" of responsible adults he had around him in his first term (Mattis, Tillerson, Kelly, General Milley, etc), but he knows he can get away with virtually anything and everything that he wants to do this time around. If you thought that Trump's first term was bad, just understand that they are prepared this time and now he's surrounded himself with people who will do his bidding -- people who are perfectly willing to let Trump be Donald Trump.

I wish there was a reason to cry foul, lodge protests, and challenge the election's results. But this wasn't a rigged election. There isn't any confusion about what the voters really wanted. The American people did this. People you know and care about and who say they care about you are the people who did this. We need to recognize that these elections aren't outliers anymore. Trump's supporters aren't simply chaos agents who got lucky on a bad day for the Democrats. That's the country we live in now and we have to find a way to resist it that actually makes a difference because now they have the keys to all the doors and all of the alarm codes. This country has normalized the conspiracy theories and nativism and racism that has powered the MAGA movement since the moment Trump came down the elevator at Trump Tower in 2015. He's given those people permission to be open with their hatred towards people who aren't like them, and it's actually become surprising to see how many Americans have been eager to take advantage of that. I didn't think I had any misconceptions about this country before Donald Trump because I recognized this nation's history, but I clearly had some misconceptions about people I thought I knew until I saw them wearing a red MAGA hat or noticed they had a gigantic flag with Trump's name hanging where their U.S. flag used to hang. Once that happened, it was like a switch went off with them and they started saying things in ways that I'd never heard them speak. I feel like that's happened to the entire country. It breaks my heart and it pisses me off.

For the past few years, I've been warning everybody about how elections have consequences. I imagine that there are hundreds of posts on this blog with that phrase in all caps listed with the tags. Now the elections have happened, and we have to live with real fucking consequences. And we're going to pass these consequences on to other generations because this is the one that you can't get a do-over on. When you give a movement like this the power and the mandate that this country just gave them, there is no easily rolling back the things that they end up doing. They are going to fundamentally change the lives of people in this nation and especially change the way the younger generations of Americans live and love and learn for years to come. And you have people in your life who made that happen. It's another disgusting day in America -- a prelude to another reprehensible four years (at the very least) -- and I'm ashamed of tens of millions of my fellow Americans because this one is on them. They know exactly who the man is that they voted for, and now we know exactly who they are, too.

[miredball]

HOTD’s rhaenyra and alicent can act and talk like (ex) lovers, can have the tension and chemistry of two romantically involved people, can follow romantic themes and have an established romantic dynamic despite being two women in a pseudo-medieval setting because they can’t truly be lovers in the eyes of the general audience.

the text (as in the show), showrunners, and actors can insist all they want on the purposeful nature of the romantic codes that inform rhaenyra and alicent’s relationship (knight and lady, star-crossed, disrupted connection, love triangles, paralleled lives, etc.) but the pseudo-medieval setting comes with certain expectations for mainstream Western audiences to buy and the depiction of an explicit, sensitive, tragic female homosexuality has not yet married with this genre.

the show has a fascinating freedom with their interpretation of this adapted relationship. it’s queer because it can’t be queer, not really! rhaenyra and alicent will never kiss or confess love or even touch lest they betray the perceived rules of this pseudo-medieval period and the narrative that literally revolves around succession and birth and reproduction. It’s easy to brush off the intensity of their bond as oh they are literally just like that.

a thorough exploration of queerness in HOTD is seemingly hampered by the setting and the established source material, not to mention the conservative fans. but at the same time the show is afforded the freedom to play around with these queer limitations because:

1. the source material is literally a history book

2. the GA on autopilot will blink and miss the subtle-not-so-subtle implications

3. the narrative is filled to the brim with men to distract from the very explicit lesbian divorce at the center.

anyways. rhaenicent romantic dynamic is trail-blazingly real and purposeful in a show so popular and expensive but only because general audiences can cajole themselves into thinking that this romance is in fact not real nor purposeful. I mean, there’s a war!

[sykeboy]

It's time to talk about the moms

With last week's and today's episode we got a good look at the different ways in which the moms reacted to the news that their daughters are in love w each other so lets take a peek shall we

I will start with this picture of our lovely lady Uang

On patriarcal societies the women are in charge of the reproductive labor which not only means giving birth but also to educate children on how to fall in line with the satus quo, women serve the patriarchy by teaching their children to follow it's rules. We are social engineers, we take care of the social events, the family gatherings, home related issues, etc.

We can see this throughout the series, the women are preparing the food, the ceremonies, they're taking care of their children, their husbands and each other. AND they're making sure the men's wishes are fullfilled: mostly we've seen this in terms of preparing their daughters to be married off to whomever their fathers or another man (Kuea for example) wishes

This is alienating for women because we reproduct a social order that causes us direct harm so in a way we are taught to hate ourselves

Now on to the moms

Patt reacts in an a very violent way, she lashes out at Pin for not abstaining herself from her dessires cause a woman is not suppossed to act on her own wishes according to Patt and to society

Aunt Patt has a lot of internalized shame and she thinks Pin should too. This is related to 3 factors: class, gender and sexuality

The one that seem to be closer to the surface for her is the one related to class. Patt is also adopted, she is the og Loyal Pin, she feels overly indebted to the royal family. She is also literally their servant, she serves them with her reproductive labor (as I explained it before), she is the beacon of womanhood, and she has taught Pin to be the same as her

So when Pin falls out of line this triggers her own unresolved issues. Patt must have been really troubled by her feelings towards Im, they go against all she believes in. She has learned that she is inferior, that she should be grateful for what she has and not to wish for more

Patt believes -as Pin does cause she thaught her- that sacrifice is the way in which a woman can gain some sense of control in a society that takes away our right to choose. This is a self fullfilling prophecy, one gives up on one's destiny and that gives you a false sense of control

Alissa on the other hand is not so present on Anin's life (and her father doesn't seem to be either), I would argue that this is one of the reasons why Anin is not so lady like, cause she's been said to be raised by her brother so she didn't have such a prevalent feminine role model

Anyways, this might have actually given her a little advantage in the sense that she had more freedom to figure her own identity out

Alissa is very surprised and afraid when Anin comes out, she is adamant on sticking to thai customs and rules. And she reminds Anin that her marrying another woman simply has no place in their context AND she reminds her that se must marry someone OF HER OWN RANK, just like Patt reminded Pin

Alissa isn't rude to Anin, she seems to tackle the issue in a very matter of factly manner, she even goes to keep her company every night after Anin moves back to the palace

Alissa also seems to be particularly worried about mantaining the monarchy intact and therefore, the social and cultural structure. She even tells Anin what worries her most is her potentially giving up her title

Once again, the moms roles in all of this are mainly related to those dictated by the reproductive labor that they must perform for the patriarchy, and today's episode is a constant reminder of that, not just for the moms but for all of our girls 😢

[catofoldstones]

I once read someone call Alysanne 'fake feminist' and that is so accurate. She was a horrible, horrible mother to her daughters. Of course Jaehaerys was even worse but at least he did not pretend to care about women. If they were the standard for ideal Targaryen couple (lets not forget Jaehaerys reproductively abuses Alysanne in later years) and rulers, then the bar is lower than hell. I read about a random targaryen on a random day and am reminded why thankfully this family is near extinction and is never coming back to power.

I genuinely don’t know why people hail Jaehaerys and Alysanne as this objectively most romantic story ever when it reads like a horror story. Especially for their daughters, and even Alysanne. Every act that Jaehaerys and Alysanne do has an undercurrent of Targ Exceptionalism running through it. In fact, getting married to each other was was not so much an extremely romantic, star crossed lovers situation but more of a blood purity situation.

The way Alysanne matched up her daughters with old lords who already had heirs and had dead wives reeks of - our daughters’ kids will marry back into the family, keeping our blood pure so that no one can challenge the throne. And that is exactly what happened. The disconnect between being outwardly feminist- hiring a female bodyguard and then discontinuing the right of first night and then inwardly pushing your daughters to their inadvertent deaths by not granting them any freedom is very on brand with their philosophy and not at all surprising.

Alysanne clearly holds the “Targaryens are closer to Gods than men” ideal in the way she acts, lives, interacts with everything around her. Women who are not Targaryens can have these “freedoms” of choice, of marrying who they want (with some caveats ofc) outside the family, at a later age, but not her daughters. They’re different. They’re purer. They’re Targaryens. And they have to uphold Targaryen standards.

Do not even get me started on Jaehaerys. Though I do have to slightly disagree with you here, anon. Jaehaerys did pretend to care about women, once, where it really mattered. With Alysanne. He had to make his sister fall in love with him to keep their bloodline within the family. He had already usurped the crown of another sister, he could not let this one go. The mask slipped off of course, with time and age. When he still wanted more kids with Alysanne to have as many “pure” Targaryens as possible and then when he fought with her about Saera and Daella. I would argue he never cared for her beyond what she could give him. He’s a sociopath.

[tothewhirlwind]

"Freedom as freedom from natural necessity" is actually a pretty intuitive conception. On the reading that sees this as implicitly saying that freedom is absolute freedom from natural necessity, this is of course absurd; no conception of political freedom can have any traction that makes the only normatively acceptable state one in which we're all empirically free from the laws of nature. This could only be a tragic theory of life, not politics.

But it's possible to be more or less constrained by natural necessity by being more or less capable of pursuing endorsed plans and acting according to endorsed principles. This is just the Spinozist conception of freedom. And in a sense it's literally cope, because you're still determined to endorse what you endorse, and it's just a matter of being appropriately harmonized with your determining factors. But that's all you can have unless you believe in libertarian free will.

But it doesn't have to just be cope, because we can also become more or less capable of pursuing a greater diversity of plans and following a greater diversity of principles by developing greater power (this is still Spinozist). And the institutions of social reproduction can empower and disempower individuals within them to greater and lesser degrees. The modern condition of "having to earn a living" can be understood as this sort of reduced state of power, and thus a reduced state of freedom, insofar as one is subject to the arbitrary will of something external to oneself. Especially since the problem of "having to earn a living" is not just that one must exert effort in order to survive (shocking!), but the desperate and servile way one has to chase after, and mold oneself to, the shifting array of desires the wage represents.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Dean Obeidallah at The Dean's Report:

We must make our focus keeping the barbarians outside the gate, not figuring out how to lessen the damage once they are on the inside. That was my immediate thought Sunday when I read NY Times in-depth article, “The Resistance to a New Trump Administration Has Already Started.” The piece featured a wide network of Democratic officials, progressive activists and more who are engaged in “extraordinary steps to prepare for a potential second Trump presidency.”  Examples include Democratic Governor Washington State Jay Inslee’s efforts to make the state a safe haven for women seeking reproductive freedom to an organization hiring a new auditor in case a second term Trump directs the Internal Revenue Service to target them. On one hand, I truly applaud these officials and organizations for grasping that Donald Trump back in the White House poses a unique threat to our freedoms and democratic Republic. Far too many don’t understand this threat.

But on the other hand, the only certain way to prevent Trump from using the government to wage a campaign of retribution, ending civil service protections so that only Trump loyalists will be in key positions in the federal government--as well as ushering in a far right wing agenda being peddled by his allies--is to defeat him this November. Again, we must make our focus keeping the barbarians outside the gate, not figuring out how to lessen the damage once they are on the inside. Trump is telling all who will listen his dark goals for a second term—from mass deportations to building in essence concentration camps for migrants to expanding executive power. There’s also Trump’s deeply concerning vow to “liberate” America from those not loyal to him. We first heard this during his 2023 speech at the conservative gathering CPAC where he promised his supporters to be their “retribution.” He then alarmingly  vowed that if elected to target Democrats, “the fake news media,” Republicans in name only, the globalists and others who oppose him, bellowing, “we will liberate America from these villains and scoundrels once and for all.”

He has repeated this pledge to “liberate” our nation from those who oppose him, including at a rally last month in Wisconsin.  When have you ever heard an American political figure speak about “liberating” America from those who politically oppose him or her?! You can’t find it because we never had an aspiring fascist—who has pledged to be a dictator on “day one”— lead one of the two main political parties. To be blunt, the forms of resistance utilized to stymie some of Trump’s agenda in the first term are unlikely to work against this bitter, angry convicted felon who is hellbent on retribution and purging America from those who won’t bend a knee to him.

[...]

From a legislative point of view, If Trump were able to win and his MAGA GOP were able to also take control of the House and Senate, we can expect him deliver for them on a laundry list of right-wing policy dreams from national abortion and birth control bans to further weakening civil rights protections for LGBTQ and Black Americans and worse. This won’t be like Trump’s first term when some Republicans stood up to him to block his radical agenda—with the most famous example being the late Senator John McCain preventing Trump from repealing the Affordable Care Act with his vote.  The Republicans who have dared to stand up to Trump are almost all out of Congress or now capitulated to his undemocratic goals. Of the ten House Republicans who voted in  January 2021 to impeach Trump for inciting the Jan. 6 insurrection, only two remain in the House. Senator Mitt Romney--a vocal critics of Trump--will be leaving office  this January. Even GOP Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell who slammed Trump on the Senate floor after the Jan. 6 attack with the words, “There is no question that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of that day,” last week met with Trump and dubbed  it “entirely positive.”

[...] If Trump wins, there are few things that can rein him in. That is why diverting efforts at this point to second term resistance strategies is dangerous given the threat Trump poses. Rather, the top and only priority must be utilizing all resources to defeat him. Nothing else matters.

Dean Obeidallah dropping truth nuggets in his latest Dean's Report post on why defeating fascist felon Donald Trump is imperative to save our nation.

See Also:

CNN: Opinion: Don’t focus on bracing for a Trump win

[wyrmfedgrave]

NBC News: Democratic governors vow to protect their states from Trump and his policies

Democratic governors are intent on bolstering the fundamental rights & values of their states - just as they did during tRump's 1st presidency.

Governor Newsome (California) is focusing on civil rights, reproductive freedoms, climate action & on immigrant families.

California's Justice Dept. will soon have additional resources to pursue litigation against unlawful acts by the tRump administration.

"We won't sit idle", Newsome stated, "We've faced this problem before & know how to respond."

Governor Pritzker (Illinois) says he'll fight against "anyone trying to take away our freedoms, dignity & opportunities."

"We are", he continued, "a refuge for human rights being denied elsewhere."

This includes political asylum, reproductive health care & safety from persecution of one's sexual orientation."

Pritzker's already codified abortion rights & has made gender-affirming care covered by local health insurers!

He's now looking into protecting outsiders needing reproductive care - by protecting their medical records...

Even environmental regulations are now being codified - just in case.

And, labor protections are being strictly maintained.

A united effort, with other Midwestern states is on the schedule. They've all survived the Rapist Con Man's last time & learned their lessons well.

Governor Hochul (NYS) has just announced the "Empire State Freedom Initiative", that addresses "policy & regulatory" threats from Republikkkans.

Things like federal attacks on legal, reproductive, immigration, civil, environmental & other issues.

Hochul states that she "wants to make NY a safer, stronger & more livable place."

Her administration has already developed legal, regulatory & appropriate responses to counter any federal actions.

Massachusetts Governor Healy will use "every tool in our 'toolbox' to protect residents, democracy & the rule of law."

As a State Attorney, she actually challenged Prez tRump's immigration laws during his 1st presidency.

She's firmly promises that her State Police won't help carry out tRump's mass deportation scheme.

Finally, NJ Governor Murphy vowed to "fight to the death" on issues pertaining to when immigration & reproductive rights are federally challenged...

Good to know that someone remembers that we're supposed to have inalienable rights.

End.

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D) signed a law on Monday that adds crucial protections for LGBTQ+ couples using fertility treatments to build a family.

The Michigan Family Protection Act includes a series of provisions to protect families of all kinds. Most notably for the LGBTQ+ community, it changes “outdated state law to treat LGBTQ+ families equally and eliminate the need for them to go through a costly and invasive process to get documentation confirming their parental status,” as a press release from the governor’s office explains, adding that “Even if they move to a state that does not respect these basic rights, these bills help ensure they cannot be denied their relationship to their child.”

The law also repeals a law that made Michigan the only state in the country to criminalize surrogacy contracts; increases protections for surrogates, parents, and children; ensures equal legal treatment of children born through surrogacy and assisted reproduction; and streamlines the process for families to establish legal connections to their children.

“The Michigan Family Protection Act takes commonsense, long-overdue action to repeal Michigan’s ban on surrogacy, protect families formed by IVF, and ensure LGBTQ+ parents are treated equally,” Gov. Whitmer said in a statement. “Your family’s decisions should be up to you, and my legislative partners and I will keep fighting like hell to protect reproductive freedom in Michigan and make our state the best place to start, raise, and grow your family.”

Stephanie Jones, founder of the Michigan Fertility Alliance, called the legislation “an incredible victory for all Michigan families formed through assisted reproduction, including IVF and surrogacy, and for LGBTQ+ families.”

The press release also acknowledged the attacks on reproductive rights taking place across the country, most notably the 2022 overturning of Roe v. Wade and the 2024 Alabama Supreme Court’s declaration that embryos created through IVF have the same legal rights as children.

“As other states seek to restrict IVF, ban abortion, and make it harder to start a family, Michigan is supporting women and protecting reproductive freedoms for everyone,” the release stated.

One fierce advocate, Tammy Myers, has been fighting for the decriminalization of surrogacy in the state for the past four years. She told 7 Action News, “The tipping point, I think, is seeing that rights are being taken across the nation and we all need to fight for reproductive freedom.”

Polly Crozier, director of family advocacy at GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), added in a statement, “Michigan has shown us what strengthening families should look like in 2024: making it more possible for people to fulfill their dreams of building a family and more accessible for all families, including LGBTQ+ families, to obtain the safety and stability that comes with legal parentage.”

“Amid efforts to restrict Americans’ reproductive freedom and roll back protections for LGBTQ+ people and their families, the Michigan Family Protection Act is an inspiring example for other states where gaps in parentage laws leave families vulnerable.”

[secularprolifeconspectus]

Hello! Sorry if it’s too political, but how do you think reproductive rights will change for women as Trump became a president again? Is it THAT bad or you think it’s mostly propaganda from mainstream media?

And what will change about abortions? Will they be banned or maybe some reforms? Is it better for pro-life movement or not? I’d be glad to hear your thoughts!

Great questions! This is a very political blog, so no worries about that lol.

I doubt that the reproductive landscape will change much because of Trump directly. He and Melania have both made it fairly clear that they are pro-choice (Melania explicitly in her memoir; Trump through his support of the abortion pill, opposition to a federal abortion ban, support of embryo destruction in IVF, and distaste of first-trimester state bans. Oh, and also the *rapist misogynist* thing). Now, what our GOP-lead senate will do? That's a little more promising, and frightening.

I strongly doubt that Trump (or even Republicans) will try to ban birth control/contraception, or to regulate sterilization; and if they do, they likely won't do it successfully. Those simply aren't popular takes. He might take a whack at surrogacy though, and he'll probably keep expanding the coercive power of the domestic infant adoption industry. It's also doubtful that he will do anything to support birth justice, especially in POC communities; if anything, his healthcare policies will probably cause further reproductive care deserts. And his immigration policies will cause thousands of abortions among refugees. It would be nice if he actually helped tackle sex trafficking. Maybe he will help protect pregnancy resource centers.

Trump seems pretty disgusted by later abortion, so he may swing his weight to help push through some state-level limitations. I hope he puts his money where his mouth is and signs off on the Born Alive Abortions Survivors Act, which will give the Born Alive Infant Protection Act some enforcement power to mandate life-saving care for abortion survivors. And perhaps he'll be vocal about regulations to end the dissection of live micropremies for research. If he's really as disturbed by "after-birth abortions" as he says he is, he'll support these initiatives.

My biggest hope is that he'll follow through on his word and pardon the abortion rescuers in prison, and that he'll rally his people to repeal the FACE Act, and then that he'll make a fuss about a congressional hearing for the DC Five. Those would be game-changers. We could actually bring back Rescue and get Justice for the Five.

Overall, is Trump better for the pro-life movement than a different right-winger? No, I think he's done massive damage to the reputation of the movement that will take years to overcome. The public doesn't trust us because of him. We must cut ties with Trumpism if we ever want to see a nonpartisan, popular pro-life movement. (We write about this in our book, btw.)

But is Trump better for the movement than Kamala? I'd say so. Kamala exhibited, not the least through her treatment of David Daleiden, but also through her remarks, that she was more than willing to suppress freedom of speech, press, and religion to protect Big Abortion. As well as to take away conscience protections for medical providers, and to eliminate the Hyde Amendment, thus not only forcing people to commit human rights violations, but also to pay for them through their taxes. That all sounds like fascism to me.

So, I'm aggrieved to have an overt fascist like Trump as our incoming president. He's going to get people killed and to ruin lives, and be an incompetent embarrassment for four years, no doubt. He does put democracy in danger. But, perhaps his overt threat will be enough to incite the people to organize against his fascism. Had Kamala won, I believe the people would have settled into complacency and accepted her covert fascism with open arms. I was truly terrified of this election, no matter the results. America has chosen the familiar threat.

If there's any other facets of reproductive justice that I missed and you want to hear about, feel free to send another ask.

[theothergal]

I've seen a post on Twitter that, in my opinion, summarizes what lots of Bridgerton's fan think about Eloise.

The tweet said, basically "I hope that the friendship with Kate will help Eloise realize that she can want romance, be a wife and a mother, be part of the Ton and still be 100% herself"

And It made me think...

What if "being 100% herself" includes not wanting any of these things?

Eloise has made quite clear that she doesn't want to be a wife and that she doesn't like the Ton's events, how can she be "100% herself" while conforming to the societal standards she resents?

I know, I know she will, eventually, because of the canon, but I don't like this attitude toward any female character Who Is not 100% gender conforming.

And it's not just Eloise, every time a female character Is not 100% feminine and Happy of being feminine Is automatically called a NLOG.

Yes, there's a conversation to be had about those female characters who put down other girls, but the focus should be their behavior, not their gender non conformity.

It's grating seeing all these post wishing for female characters to become more gender conforming as growth.

"Another pick me! I hope X will grow out of her NLOG phase and start appreciating romance, embroidery, pink and dresses"

"Wouldn't be cool if that masc female characters started hanging out with girly girls and became more girly herself? She can be a masc with a splash of pink and makeup😉"

"Female characters who resist arranged marriage are so stupid! Just think about the advantages It brings! A smart girl would be happy to wed a stranger for money and power. Freedom and reproductive autonomy? What are those?"

"I'm tired of of these girlboss female characters fighting and punching like men, we need more female characters,who use their feminine power to succeed. Action female characters are basically men with boobs"

Do you hear yourselves?

Put this in your heads. Some women and girls don't like pink, dresses, embroidery, makeup...and it's perfectly FINE.

I wish there were as many masc characters as you think there are. Instead we get slightly-tomboyish-but-still-feminine-enough female characters who are ALWAYS forced into femininity and eventually "learn" to enjoy.

You make me want to write a story where the FMC Is 100% gnc and stays like this until the end, and when somebody tries to femminize her she tells them of.

Like "I don't want to wear dresses, or pink or heels. I don't want to marry or have children. Not now, not tomorrow, not ever".

Sorry, it became a rant, and I'm sure I Lost some nuance, but seriously, stop treating gnc female characters as bitter nlogs who should learn to become pure and beautiful girly girls.

I'm nowhere near the most masculine girls ever, and I still get sometimes shat on for not liking makeup, for not shaving and for acting awkward sometimes, and I know I'm not always pleasant to be around, but it's not always my fault.

It's not fun.

[bbygirl-aemond]

Jaehaerys was such a shit dad he fucked up all of his children thank god for Alysanne

anon i am so sorry to ruin this for you, but alysanne really wasn't a good mom or grandmom to specifically the women within her family. she didn't have as much power as viserys, but she managed to use her power to control her female descendants' marriages to straight up ruin most of their lives 😬

she allowed 16yo daella to be married off to a 36yo rodrik arryn (she did give daella two other options, but they were both fully grown men). teenage daella soon fell pregnant and wrote to her mother saying she was scared for her life. she died in childbirth.

she betrothed 15yo viserra to the already "old" and "very stout" lord manderly, who'd already gone through four wives, and who viserra made clear she did not want to marry. she did this even though viserra was young because she disliked that viserra was currying favor with men due to her beauty. this directly pushed viserra to slip her guards and try to enjoy some freedom before being married to a fat old grandpa, which led to the accident that killed her.

maegelle was kind of alright but she was raised to be a silent sister from birth, she never had a choice in it. alysanne decided her entire life's course for her as a baby and she was never allowed to consider any other path.

gael honestly had a very clingy relationship with alysanne because by the time she was born alysanne had already lost several children. i think alysanne using gael as an emotional crutch for losing children directly contributed to gael later killing herself at 19yo after losing a baby.

alyssa was allowed to marry baelon when she was just 15yo. some people say it was nice of alysanne to let alyssa marry who she wanted, but given alysanne's track record i think alyssa's wants didn't factor into this decision as much as baelon's did. and regardless, allowing alyssa to marry and become pregnant so young put her at risk for the childbirth complications that later killed her.

saera i could write an entire essay about. she was constantly ignored by her parents since she was the ninthborn and a girl, and was punished when this neglect made her act out for attention. jaehaerys was willing to let saera marry one of the three men she favored, but alysanne refused. when saera was found to have kissed and possibly slept with these men, alysanne said she should be punished, and stood by while saera was forced to watch from afar as her own father killed one of her male companions. she then forced saera to join the faith, where she was abused for over a year (her head was shaved, she was physically beaten, etc.). i don't blame saera for running away and remaining no contact with alysanne for the rest of alysanne's life.

alysanne even did her grandchildren dirty. she allowed 11yo aemma to be married to viserys, and later allowed viserys to consummate the marriage when aemma was just 13yo even though maesters warned them it would irreparably damage aemma's reproductive system and body. this caused aemma lifelong health issues that later killed her. like this is literally what happened with daella, only much worse, and they absolutely knew better but didn't care enough about poor aemma's safety.

listen, i appreciate the things alysanne accomplished as jaehaerys's advisor. she was definitely the biggest force of good for women that we ever got under the targaryens (save for daenerys). but it's not a coincidence that alysanne's relationships with all of her daughters ended in tragedy when her relationships with her sons did not.

she is complicit in the unhappiness and death that faced her descendants like daella, alyssa, and aemma for allowing them to become pregnant so young. she was slut-shamey towards both viserra and saera for daring to have agency over their sexuality, even more so than jaehaerys which is really saying something. she had a talent for alienating her daughters and making choices for their lives without regard for their happiness. contrast this to her relationships with her sons, whom she allowed the agency she never granted her daughters: she allowed both aemon and baelon to choose their own wives, rather than following precedent that would dictate aemon marry alyssa.

basically, alysanne was definitely a feminist when it came to policy, but her internalized misogyny jumped out HARD when it came to her family's affairs. and her female descendants paid the price for it, with their happiness, with their lives, or both.

[rawmeknockout]

Can I request a breeding kink for Vos and a human s/o? I'm thirsty for that man 👁️👁️

Vos doesn’t like Tarn’s new pet. It blubbers and whines in its high-pitched mammalian sounds, crying like a dying mechanimal during every klik of the orbital cycle. It requires far too much attention, or else it’s likely to be crushed in one of its pathetic escape attempts. Too many times Vos has been tasked with crawling through the vents to pluck up the skittering thing. Every time, it bawls its little organic optics out and kicks at him. Were it not for Tarn’s fondness of the thing, Vos would have squished the little insect by now.

There’s truly no use having it around, and yet Tarn has affection for it all the same.

Occasionally, Vos, with his audials set to maximum, will hear its distant whining and it’s… Softer. Drawn out and mournful. Everyone knows why Tarn keeps it alive, but Vos has no taste for it. Laying with the thing, even if he were desperate enough, would be like laying with the Pet. Primal and repulsive; an act of a mech who is truly without dignity. He tries not to juxtapose this judgement with the idea of his leader.

And yet, the creature is soft in his servos. It trembles but Vos keeps a sure grip on it. Easily. He’s unused to being so large next to another. He’s known of humans for a while, but has never had the misfortune of meeting one before Tarn’s pet.

It… You squish and yield beneath his claws. The next time Vos has to pull you from the vents, he looks at his digits for a long time. A creature like you shouldn’t even survive. No outer shell to protect you, inner structure like the flimsiest steel, mesh that is not mesh. It bends and flexes and gives way readily when punctured. Vos can… imagine what Tarn sees in you. If he truly were to give you a grace you don’t deserve.

You are small, yes, but your body gives way. It bends and adapts readily. Part of what makes carrying so unviable is the rigidity of Cybertronian frames. A species meant to, built to, colonize and conquer. Frames made to withstand and last. Frames that don’t produce life as easily, because reproduction is not the first method by which they survive. But for organics, mating like petrorabbits is the only way to thrive. The idea was disgusting to him at first, novel in a way that looking at a scraplet’s innards might be, but the idea sits in his processor for too long. Festers like an open wound. Vos has always been seen as more primitive, treated as such by his peers. It’s not something that bothers him anymore, but it has certainly shaped him.

He can’t rationalize why he does it. Perhaps he is truly sick. His job makes that obvious to any other, but Vos knows he has limits. Assumed he did, at least. You are snug around his spike, warm and wet. Your insides writhe in a way that is unnatural to him, unlike the grind of cable and gear. You do not coil like metal. It’s not unpleasant in the slightest. Part of him is still repulsed by the slip of your body against his, the way your organic flesh presses oil and sweat to his armor, but Vos revels in the disgusting. He would gladly coat himself in another mech’s viscera, and pushing his spike into you feels like the same sort of satisfaction.

You would look endearing filled to the brim with sparklings, your body molded around what he had given you. His coding hard at work in a body that is designed to bend and morph. Just as your body yields, you make room to fit him. You bend your desires out of the way to curl into Vos’ arms, to wrap your small human legs around his hips and pull him close. Your animal sounds are light and lovely, no longer a grating keen for mercy or freedom. Tarn could never pull such sounds from your fleshling vocalizer, too large and too rough no matter how he tries. His frame made to bully through others with little regard. And yet, compared to you, Vos is the same. It pulls a raspy chuckle from his intake, a moan like rusty metal grinding.

Vos will make sure it takes. You are eager for his touch, your body more than able to carry, and he has all the time in the world to see it will.

[misfitwashere]

September 9, 2024 

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

SEP 10

Last night, Vice President Kamala Harris’s presidential campaign launched a new section of its website detailing her policy positions. Titling her plans “A New Way Forward,” Harris vows to build the American middle class through an “opportunity economy.” Her vision for the future, she says, “protects our fundamental freedoms, strengthens our democracy, and ensures every person has the opportunity to not just get by, but to get ahead.” 

Harris’s economic plan builds on that of the Biden-Harris administration. This makes sense, since their focus on investing in the middle class has created the strongest economy in the world. Harris is emphasizing the need to bring down household costs of food, medicine, housing, healthcare, and childcare, all issues important to Americans.  

The website provides concrete economic actions she plans to take with a willing Congress. They include expanding the Child Tax Credit and the Earned Income Tax Credit, investing in more housing, and supporting the PRO Act, which protects the rights of workers to unionize, while continuing the crackdown on business consolidation that kills competition and rolling back the Trump tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations.

The biggest economic shift from the current administration is pegging a new capital gains tax for those earning more than a million dollars a year at 28%, significantly lower than the 39.6% President Joe Biden proposed in his 2025 budget. The plans also call for the first-ever national ban on corporate price gouging on food and groceries (37 states already have such laws). 

Aside from strictly economic plans, the policy pages say Harris backs passing the bipartisan immigration bill that Republicans killed on Trump’s orders, protecting reproductive healthcare and restoring Roe v. Wade, and protecting the right to vote and ending partisan gerrymandering through the John Lewis Voting Rights and the Freedom to Vote Acts.

Republicans have charged that Harris has not offered specifics for her policies, but much of what is now clearly laid out is already in the public record. By the standards of American history, it is a strikingly moderate agenda that reflects the belief that the best way for the government to protect opportunity and nurture the economy is to make sure that the system is fair and that ordinary people have access to opportunity.

The “New Way Forward” in Harris’s plan seems to be less a new set of policies than a rejection of the politics of the past several decades. She and her running mate Minnesota governor Tim Walz appear to be attempting to reshape the political landscape to bring Americans of all parties together to stand against Trump’s MAGA Republicans. The campaign has actively reached out to Republicans, several of whom spoke at the Democratic National Convention. On Saturday, Harris said she was “honored” to have the endorsement of former representative Liz Cheney (R-WY) and former vice president Dick Cheney, both staunch Republicans. “People are exhausted about the division and the attempt to divide us as Americans,” she said. “We love our country and we have more in common than what separates us.” 

Trump’s website offers slogans rather than policies, so Harris’s website compares her policies to the comparable sections of Project 2025, the playbook for a second Trump term laid out by a number of right-wing institutions led by the Heritage Foundation. Trump and his campaign have tried to distance themselves from Project 2025, but at his rallies, he has offered the policies in it—like firing nonpartisan civil servants and replacing them with loyalists, and abolishing the Department of Education—as his top priorities. 

While Harris focused on policy, as critics have demanded, MAGA Republicans today spread slurs about Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, claiming they are eating other people’s pets and local wildlife. Right-wing media figure Benny Johnson, who was one of the six commenters whose paychecks at now-disbanded Tenet Media were paid by Russia, was one of those pushing the false stories. So was X owner Elon Musk. 

The story was debunked almost immediately by the Springfield police, but Republican politicians ran with it. The X account for Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee ran it; so did Texas senator Ted Cruz, who shared an image with two kittens saying: “PLEASE VOTE FOR TRUMP SO IMMIGRANTS DON’T EAT US.” And the Republican vice presidential nominee, Ohio senator J.D. Vance, posted: “Reports now show that people have had their pets abducted and eaten by people who shouldn't be in this country.” (The Haitians in Springfield are in the U.S. legally.)

Perhaps most significantly, Republican Senate candidate Bernie Moreno, who is challenging Democratic Ohio senator Sherrod Brown, pushed the story. That Senate seat is crucial to the Republican attempt to take control of the Senate, and Moreno has just launched a $25 million ad campaign against Brown, accusing him of giving undocumented immigrants taxpayer-funded benefits. Today’s disinformation was well timed for that ad campaign. 

The Justice Department today announced  charges against two leaders of the white supremacist Terrorgram Collective, an international terrorist group that operates on the platform Telegram. Dallas Humber of California and Matthew Allison of Idaho have been charged with “soliciting hate crimes, soliciting the murder of federal officials, and conspiring to provide material support to terrorists.” They “solicited murders and hate crimes based on the race, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, and gender identity of others,” U.S. Attorney Phillip Talbert said. They had a hit list of federal, state, and local officials, as well as corporate leaders, and they encouraged attacks on government infrastructure, including energy facilities. Their plan was to create a race war. 

“Hate crimes fueled by bigotry and white supremacy, and amplified by the weaponization of digital messaging platforms, are on the rise and have no place in our society,” Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division said.

Congress is back in session today and must fund the government before October 1 or face a government shutdown. Although Congress negotiated spending levels for 2024 and 2025 back in June 2023, the House has been unable to pass appropriations bills because MAGA extremists either refuse to accept those levels or insist on inserting culture war poison pills into the bills. 

Now, Trump has demanded that a continuing resolution to fund the government must include a measure requiring proof of citizenship to vote. Since it is already illegal for noncitizens to vote in elections for president or members of Congress and there is no evidence it is anything but vanishingly rare, the measure actually seems designed to suppress voting. House speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) went along and put the measure in the bill. He also designed for the measure to last until next March, making the budget so late a new president could write it, but also blowing through a January 1 deadline set in the June 2023 bill to require automatic cuts to spending.

House minority leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) wrote to his colleagues: “House Democrats have made it clear that we will find bipartisan common ground on any issue with our Republican colleagues wherever possible, while pushing back against MAGA extremism.” Jeffries called the Republican bill “unserious and unacceptable.”

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin told House and Senate leaders that the cuts required by law if Congress pushes the budget into March would drastically affect the military. “The repercussions of Congress failing to pass regular appropriations legislation for the first half of [fiscal] 2025 would be devastating to our readiness and ability to execute the National Defense Strategy,” Austin wrote.

Meanwhile, Senator Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) is back to his old trick of blocking a military promotion, this time of Lieutenant General Ronald Clark, one of Austin’s top aides. Tuberville says he placed the hold because he has concerns that Clark did not alert Biden when Austin had surgery. Biden has nominated Clark to become the Commanding General of the U.S. Army Pacific, a position currently held by General Charles A. Flynn, younger brother of Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, Trump’s first National Security Advisor who resigned after news broke that he had hidden conversations with Russian operatives. 

Today, ten retired senior military officials endorsed Harris, saying she “is the best—and only—presidential candidate in this race who is fit to serve as our commander-in-chief…. Frankly stated, Donald Trump is a danger to our national security and our democracy. His own former National Security Advisors, Defense Secretaries, and Chiefs of Staff have said so.”

—