#making pornography and contraception illegal

[in-sightjournal]

Ask A Genius 993: Project 2025

Rick Rosner: It’s a disaster for America because of the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025. Are you aware of Project 2025? Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Yes, I am aware of Project 2025. Rosner: For those who aren’t, it’s a conservative wish list, more than 900 pages long, detailing what they intend to do if Trump becomes president again. Now, they won’t be able to implement all of it, or perhaps even…

[tripod-fish]

conservatives want to genocide trans people & imprison sex workers in the next election - cis people are in danger as well. nobody is talking about this, so REBLOG IT.

REBLOG THIS. i do not care if this doesn't fit with your blog. conservatives, if the next president is republican, want to implement things that involve killing/jailing trans people, information control, actively stopping efforts to stop climate change, etc. if a twitter thread is more digestible, you can find one i made here. RETWEET IT.

https://twitter.com/nuniyoa/status/1698534141472727358

so fucking nobody (that i've seen) is talking about this and i've only seen 1 tumblr post about it with less than 6k notes. @asterosian was the one who brought this to my attention, and here's his post: https://ganbreedings.tumblr.com/post/727921195127865344

the document, which can be found below this paragraph, is ~1000 pages long and i know nobody on tumblr has the patience to read that. use ctrl+f on this pdf (link is to view it in browser) to look up specific topics. in this post, i will be briefly discussing some of the things said using textual evidence and citations. https://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/project2025/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf

just some of the things this document talks about are:

wanting to imprison trans people for existing, make discrimination of people legal in the workplace, punish education about the existence of trans people, make sex work illegal, make education about sex illegal, make contraception unaffordable, ban the week-after pill, imply fatherhood is a requirement, ban education on real american history, ignore other governments, seal the borders, enforce the death penalty (including for trans people for just existing), stop efforts to end climate change, fund the military, claim OAR science is theoretical and downsize it and NOAA, eliminate critical race theory in education, want to eliminate teaching of critical race theory based on a gross misunderstanding, eliminate diversity, the teaching of marxism's existence, "deleting" words regarding queer and reproductive topics, and so much more.

we trans people are called pornography:

"Pornography, manifested today in the omnipresent propagation of transgender ideology sexualization of children..." (page 37)

and conservatives want to outlaw pornography and say those who distribute it should be imprisoned. if trans people are pornography, is not going about our day outside distributing porn?

"Pornography should be outlawed. The people who produce and distribute it should be imprisoned" (page 37)

they also support the death penalty and say that "child sexual abusers" should be given that. i am not disagreeing that CSA is bad; it is. i'm talking about how they're going to classify trans people as that for exposing minors to "porn" for simply going out in public. by saying this, they are using roundabout language and logic to say trans people should be given the death penalty.

"It should also pursue the death penalty for applicable crimes...crimes involving...sexual abuse of children..." (page 554)

they don't want people to be taught about our existence. and they don't want sex taught at all; even safe sex.

"Educators and public librarians who purvey [porn] should be classed as registered sex offenders..." (page 37)

sex education needs to be taught, period. and if they're going to ban abortions and contraceptives, it especially needs to be taught.

"HHS should rescind...preventive services...preventive services include contraception..." (page 483)

"Eliminate the week-after-pill..." (page 485)

they want to ignore what other countries say.

"International organizations and agreements that erode our Constitution, rule of law, or popular sovereignty should not be reformed: They should be abandoned" (page 12)

they want the border SEALED and illegal immigration ended:

"Illegal immigration...ended...the border sealed..." (page 12)

and, of course, more xenophobic shit about china:

"Economic engagement with China ended..." (page 13)

"[Universities funded by the CCP should] lose their accreditation, charters, and eligibility for federal funds" (page 13).

they want to stop efforts to end climate change:

"Repeal climate change initiatives..." (page 508)

and downsize funds given to the government division (OAR) that forwards its information on climate change to the NOAA, and they want climate change research "disbanded":

"...[OAR climate change research is] theoretical..." (page 676)

"...disbanded..." (page 676)

they want critical race theory and gender ideology erased from schools because they "poison our children". they are erasing things from being taught; and critical race theory isn't about affirming one's characteristics. it's for showing that white people are on top and that it needs to change:

"...'critical race theory and 'gender ideology' should be excised from curricula in every public school in the country..." (page 5)

"These theories poison our children..." (page 5)

"...affirm the color of their skin fundamentally determines their identity and even their moral status..." (page 5)

and they straight up don't want america's history being taught. america is founded on racism, tears, oppression, etc. they don't want this taught because they don't want people knowing real american history. so they can't see history repeating itself:

"...racist, anti-American, ahistorical propaganda [in] America's classrooms" (page 8)

they want discrimination based on queer status and "sex characteristics" legal. this is said in regards to the military, but it won't stop there. and "sex characteristics" means YOU, cis people. you can be denied things just for having boobs or a beard. even if you're cis:

"Rescind regulations prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, transgender status, and sex characteristics" (page 585)

"...abolish newly established diversity, equity, and inclusion offices and staff" (page 103)

and misinformation is present of course by saying gender-affirming care causes irreparable damage:

"...'gender transition' procedures or 'gender-affirming care,' which cause irreversible physical and mental harm to those who receive them"

and, quite abhorrently, and i quote, they want words related to queerness DELETED:

"This starts with deleting the terms sexual orientation and gender identity ('SOGI'), diversity, equity, and inclusion ('DEI'), gender, gender equality, gender equity, gender awareness, gender-sensitive, abortion, reproductive health, reproductive rights, and any other term used to deprive Americans of their First Amendment rights..." (pages 4-5).

there is... SO much more i could cover. but i need to cut it short somewhere. and remember: this affects everyone.

cis people, you can be discriminated against for "sex characteristics", which includes things like breasts or facial hair. transphobic queer people, you can and will be discriminated against for your sexuality. your children are at danger of being taught deliberate misinformation at school. america is sealing itself off in a fascist bubble; as much as it hates countries like china and north korea, it is doing the exact same thing. and climate change regulations want to be repealed and climate change science is called "theoretical". this isn't even just about america anymore; this is about the whole world.

vote in the 2024 election. vote democrat. don't let the "mandate of leadership: the conservative promise" by the heritage foundation make this shithole country even worse.

[eternal-echoes]

Just to clarify some confusions brought on by this post (especially since it has reached outside my usual Christian tumblr clique a lot of implicitly agreed upon context is lost), Catholics do not seek to make every sin illegal. St. Augustine even stated that we shouldn’t make earthly human laws banning every single sin because some good may be wiped out as a result.

For example, it’s a mortal sin to use contraception during sexual intercourse whether within or outside of marriage. However, if we were to make it illegal, we would have to violate people’s right to privacy in order to find evidence to prosecute people due to this prohibition. Hence why Catholics shouldn’t seek to make it illegal.

The point of the statement:

"Is an alcoholic free if he's allowed to take another bottle or if he's prevented to get another drink?"

is to show that an alcoholic isn’t really free; he’s a slave to his carnal desires. An alcoholic reaching for another drink is only hurting himself; he’s not fulfilling his best potential. If you love someone, you would prevent them from hurting themselves. Because the definition of love is willing the good of another. And the logic of love is the basis of Christianity.

Just as an athlete restricts himself certain food in order to achieve his best performance in a marathon, so too Christians follow certain rules and regulations so we can be purified and be worthy in uniting with God in the afterlife; because nothing unclean can stand within the presence of God.

We Christians abstain from pre-marital sex and pornography so we don’t settle for the kind of “love” that reduces people to sexual pleasure. And also so we can have the unconditional love and see the real soul of the person in his/her naked body after genuine and honest courtship and receiving the sacrament of marriage.

Because freedom is not an end on itself, it’s a means to an end, which is to achieve man’s purpose. And the purpose of human life is to love and serve God.

Since God made everything in the universe, everything exists to serve Him. Catholics believe that the purpose of the government is to lead people to God, not just preventing ourselves from killing each other.

Having said that, the kind of human laws that we should have that only forbids certain sins and not the others requires another blogposts (more like another book) so I’ll just end this right here.

[ongole]

DAILY SCRIPTURE READINGS (DSR) 📚 Group, Sun April 21st, 2024 ... Fourth Sunday of Easter, Year B ... KNOW YOUR CATHOLICISM

HOW TO MAKE A GOOD CONFESSION

The Sacrament of Reconciliation, or Confession, brings about a change of heart through God’s mercy and forgiveness. Experience the Lord’s compassion through the Sacrament of Penance, which is made up of the following parts:

• Before Confession

• During Confession

• After Confession

BEFORE CONFESSION

How to Make a Good Confession

Confession is not difficult, but it does require preparation. We should begin with prayer, placing ourselves in the presence of God, our loving Father. We seek healing and forgiveness through repentance and a resolve to sin no more. Then we review our lives since our last confession, searching our thoughts, words and actions for that which did not conform to God’s command to love Him and one another through His laws and the laws of His Church. This is called an examination of conscience.

TO MAKE AN EXAMINATION OF CONSCIENCE:

• Begin with a prayer asking for God’s help.

• Review your life with the help of some questions, which are based on the 10 Commandments (see below).

• Tell God how truly sorry you are for your sins.

• Make a firm resolution not to sin again.

EXAMINATION OF CONSCIENCE

Ask God to help you make a good confession. In quiet reflection ask yourself: Since my last confession…

• Did I pray to God, daily and from my heart?

• Did I live and witness to my Catholic faith, joyfully & courageously? Did I take God’s name in vain? Did I curse anyone or make false oaths? Did I engage in superstitious or occult practices?

• Did I attend and participate actively at Mass on Sundays and holy days of obligation? Did I fast & abstain on prescribed days?

• Did I respect people in authority? My employer? Did I honor my parents?

• Was I violent or unnecessarily aggressive (e.g., physically, verbally, psychologically, etc.) with anyone?

• Was I prideful, stubborn, or rude with anyone? Did I hold a grudge?

• Did I abuse alcohol, prescription medications, or illegal drugs? Did I overindulge in food?

• Did I consent to, recommend, advise, or actively take part in an abortion? Did I use abortifacient drugs?

• Did I view pornography, entertain lustful thoughts, conversations or actions?

• Was I unloving to my spouse? Did I engage in adulterous activity (e.g., sexual, emotional, virtual, etc.)? Did I use contraceptives?

• Was I neglectful of the spiritual, intellectual, emotional, or physical needs of my spouse, children, or family?

• Did I steal or damage another’s property? Was I honest and just in my business relations? Did I waste time at work?

•  Did I contribute to the needs of the spiritually and materially poor with my time and resources?

•  Did I engage in gossip? Did I lie? Did I speak poorly of others? Did I judge anyone unfairly?

• Did I envy anyone? Was I jealous of others or or covet another’s belongings?

DURING CONFESSION

The Sacrament of Reconciliation (Confession) involves four steps:

• Contrition: A sincere sorrow for having offended God, and the most important act of the person confessing. There can be no forgiveness of sin if we do not have sorrow and a firm resolve not to repeat our sin.

• Confession: Naming our sins—aloud—to the priest, who represents Christ and the Church.

• Penance: The prayers—or sometimes, the good deeds—the priest gives, for our healing and the healing of those we have hurt by our sins.

• Absolution: The words the priest speaks by which “God, the Father of mercies” reconciles us to himself through his death and resurrection, called the Prayer of Absolution: “God the father of mercies through the death and resurrection of his Son as reconciled the world to himself and the sent the Holy Spirit among us for the forgiveness of sins. Through the ministry of the Church may God give you pardon and peace and I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.”

Going to Confession

Reconciliation may be face-to-face or anonymous, with a screen between you and the priest. Choose the option that is the most comfortable for you.

• The priest gives a blessing or greeting.

• Make the Sign of the Cross and say, “Bless me father, for I have sinned. My last confession was…” (give weeks, months, or years).

• Confess all your sins to the priest. (If you are unsure or uneasy, tell him and ask for help.)

• Say, “I am sorry for these and all my sins.”

• The priest gives a penance and offers advice to help you become a better Catholic Christian.

• Say an Act of Contrition, expressing your sorrow for your sins.

• The priest, acting in the person of Christ, then absolves you from your sins.

ACT OF CONTRITION

God, I am heartily sorry for having offended you, and I detest all my sins because I dread the loss of heaven and the pains of hell; but most of all because they offend you, my God, who are all good and deserving of all my love. I firmly resolve with the help of your grace to confess my sins, do penance, and to amend my life. Amen.

AFTER CONFESSION

Rejoice! You have received the forgiveness of Christ! What should you do when you leave? Remember the words you recited in the Act of Contrition: “I firmly intend, with your help, to do penance, to sin no more, and to avoid whatever leads me to sin.”

Before you leave the confessional, the priest will give you your penance, which may consist of prayer, an offering, works of mercy or sacrifices. These works help to join us with Christ, who alone died for us. The goal of our life’s journey is to grow closer to God. We can do this through prayer, spiritual reading, fasting and the reception of the Sacraments.

***

【Build your Faith in Christ Jesus on #dailyscripturereadingsgroup 📚: +256 751 540 524 .. Whatsapp】

 

[zenruption]

What is Mifepristone and The Comstock Act?

Mifepristone, also known as RU-486, is a medication used for medical abortion (termination of pregnancy). It is a synthetic steroid that blocks the action of progesterone, a hormone necessary for the maintenance of pregnancy. By blocking progesterone, mifepristone causes the uterus to contract and expel the pregnancy.

Mifepristone is typically used in combination with another medication called misoprostol to induce a medical abortion. The two medications are usually taken in sequence, with mifepristone taken first and misoprostol taken one to two days later.

Mifepristone is only available by prescription and must be administered under medical supervision. It is generally considered safe and effective when used as directed, but it can cause side effects such as nausea, vomiting, cramping, and bleeding. It is important for women who are considering a medical abortion to discuss the risks and benefits of the procedure with a qualified healthcare provider.

The Comstock Act

Some judges and political activists are trying to make it illegal to send medications across state lines, restoring the since repealed and antiquated Comstock Act.

The Comstock Act was a federal law passed by the United States Congress in 1873 that was named after its chief sponsor, Anthony Comstock. The law was designed to restrict the circulation of materials that were considered obscene or immoral, particularly those related to birth control and abortion.

The Comstock Act made it illegal to send through the mail any "obscene, lewd, or lascivious" materials, including pornography, birth control information, and other materials related to sexual health. The law also made it a crime to advertise or sell any contraceptive devices, including condoms and diaphragms.

The Comstock Act was controversial at the time of its passage, and it was the subject of significant opposition from women's rights advocates and others who believed that it infringed on individual liberties and restricted access to important healthcare information. The law remained in effect until the mid-20th century, when it was gradually repealed or struck down by the courts.

[sciencespies]

The Sex Education Pamphlet That Sparked a Landmark Censorship Case

https://sciencespies.com/history/the-sex-education-pamphlet-that-sparked-a-landmark-censorship-case/

The Sex Education Pamphlet That Sparked a Landmark Censorship Case

Mary Ware Dennett wrote The Sex Side of Life in 1915 as a teaching tool for her teenage sons. Photo illustration by Meilan Solly / Photos courtesy of Sharon Spaulding and Newspapers.com

It only took 42 minutes for an all-male jury to convict Mary Ware Dennett. Her crime? Sending a sex education pamphlet through the mail.

Charged with violating the Comstock Act of 1873—one of a series of so-called chastity laws—Dennett, a reproductive rights activist, had written and illustrated the booklet in question for her own teenage sons, as well as for parents around the country looking for a new way to teach their children about sex.

Lawyer Morris Ernst filed an appeal, setting in motion a federal court case that signaled the beginning of the end of the country’s obscenity laws. The pair’s victory marked the zenith of Dennett’s life work, building on her previous efforts to publicize and increase access to contraception and sex education. (Prior to the trial, she was best known as the more conservative rival of Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood.) Today, however, United States v. Dennett and its defendant are relatively unknown.

“One of the reasons the Dennett case hasn’t gotten the attention that it deserves is simply because it was an incremental victory, but one that took the crucial first step,” says Laura Weinrib, a constitutional historian and law scholar at Harvard University. “First steps are often overlooked. We tend to look at the culmination and miss the progression that got us there.”

Dennett wrote the offending pamphlet (in blue) for her two sons.  

Sharon Spaulding / Dennett Family Archive

Dennett wrote the pamphlet in question, The Sex Side of Life: An Explanation for Young People, in 1915. Illustrated with anatomically correct drawings, it provided factual information, offered a discussion of human physiology and celebrated sex as a natural human act.

“[G]ive them the facts,” noted Dennett in the text, “… but also give them some conception of sex life as a vivifying joy, as a vital art, as a thing to be studied and developed with reverence for its big meaning, with understanding of its far-reaching reactions, psychologically and spiritually.”

After Dennett’s 14-year-old son approved the booklet, she circulated it among friends who, in turn, shared it with others. Eventually, The Sex Side of Life landed on the desk of editor Victor Robinson, who published it in his Medical Review of Reviewsin 1918. Calling the pamphlet “a splendid contribution,” Robinson added, “We know nothing that equals Mrs. Dennett’s brochure.” Dennett, for her part, received so many requests for copies that she had the booklet reprinted and began selling it for a quarter to anyone who wrote to her asking for one.

These transactions flew in the face of the Comstock Laws, federal and local anti-obscenity legislation that equated birth control with pornography and rendered all devices and information for the prevention of conception illegal. Doctors couldn’t discuss contraception with their patients, nor could parents discuss it with their children.

Dennett as a young woman

Sharon Spaulding / Dennett Family Archive

The Sex Side of Life offered no actionable advice regarding birth control. As Dennett acknowledged in the brochure, “At present, unfortunately, it is against the law to give people information as to how to manage their sex relations so that no baby will be created.” But the Comstock Act also stated that any printed material deemed “obscene, lewd or lascivious”—labels that could be applied to the illustrated pamphlet—was “non-mailable.” First-time offenders faced up to five years in prison or a maximum fine of $5,000.

In the same year that Dennett first wrote the brochure, she co-founded the National Birth Control League (NBCL), the first organization of its kind. The group’s goal was to change obscenity laws at a state level and unshackle the subject of sex from Victorian morality and misinformation.

By 1919, Dennett had adopted a new approach to the fight for women’s rights. A former secretary for state and national suffrage associations, she borrowed a page from the suffrage movement, tackling the issue on the federal level rather than state-by-state. She resigned from the NBCL and founded the Voluntary Parenthood League, whose mission was to pass legislation in Congress that would remove the words “preventing conception” from federal statutes, thereby uncoupling birth control from pornography.

Dennett soon found that the topic of sex education and contraception was too controversial for elected officials. Her lobbying efforts proved unsuccessful, so in 1921, she again changed tactics. Though the Comstock Laws prohibited the dissemination of obscene materials through the mail, they granted the postmaster general the power to determine what constituted obscenity. Dennett reasoned that if the Post Office lifted its ban on birth control materials, activists would win a partial victory and be able to offer widespread access to information.

Postmaster General William Hays, who had publicly stated that the Post Office should not function as a censorship organization, emerged as a potential ally. But Hays resigned his post in January 1922 without taking action. (Ironically, Hays later established what became known as the Hays Code, a set of self-imposed restrictions on profanity, sex and morality in the motion picture industry.) Dennett had hoped that the incoming postmaster general, Hubert Work, would fulfill his predecessor’s commitments. Instead, one of Work’s first official actions was to order copies of the Comstock Laws prominently displayed in every post office across America. He then declared The Sex Side of Life “unmailable” and “indecent.”

Mary Ware Dennett, pictured in the 1940s

Dennett Family Archive

Undaunted, Dennett redoubled her lobbying efforts in Congress and began pushing to have the postal ban on her booklet removed. She wrote to Work, pressing him to identify which section was obscene, but no response ever arrived. Dennett also asked Arthur Hays, chief counsel of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), to challenge the ban in court. In letters preserved at Radcliffe College’s Schlesinger Library, Dennett argued that her booklet provided scientific and factual information. Though sympathetic, Hays declined, believing that the ACLU couldn’t win the case.

By 1925, Dennett—discouraged, broke and in poor health—had conceded defeat regarding her legislative efforts and semi-retired. But she couldn’t let the issue go entirely. She continued to mail The Sex Side of Life to those who requested copies and, in 1926, published a book titled Birth Control Laws: Shall We Keep Them, Change Them, or Abolish Them?

Publicly, Dennett’s mission was to make information about birth control legal; privately, however, her motivation was to protect other women from the physical and emotional suffering she had endured.

The activist wed in 1900 and gave birth to three children, two of whom survived, within five years. Although the specifics of her medical condition are unknown, she likely suffered from lacerations of the uterus or fistulas, which are sometimes caused by childbirth and can be life-threatening if one becomes pregnant again.

Without access to contraceptives, Dennett faced a terrible choice: refrain from sexual intercourse or risk death if she conceived. Within two years, her husband had left her for another woman.

Dennett obtained custody of her children, but her abandonment and lack of access to birth control continued to haunt her. Eventually, these experiences led her to conclude that winning the vote was only one step on the path to equality. Women, she believed, deserved more.

In 1928, Dennett again reached out to the ACLU, this time to lawyer Ernst, who agreed to challenge the postal ban on the Sex Side of Life in court. Dennett understood the risks and possible consequences to her reputation and privacy, but she declared herself ready to “take the gamble and be game.” As she knew from press coverage of her separation and divorce, newspaper headlines and stories could be sensational, even salacious. (The story was considered scandalous because Dennett’s husband wanted to leave her to form a commune with another family.)

Dennett cofounded the National Birth Control League, the first organization of its kind in the U.S., in 1915. Three years later, she launched the Voluntary Parenthood League, which lobbied Congress to change federal obscenity laws.

Sharon Spaulding / Dennett Family Archive

“Dennett believed that anyone who needed contraception should get it without undue burden or expense, without moralizing or gatekeeping by the medical establishment,” says Stephanie Gorton, author of Citizen Reporters: S.S. McClure, Ida Tarbell and the Magazine That Rewrote America. “Though she wasn’t fond of publicity, she was willing to endure a federal obscenity trial so the next generation could have accurate sex education—and learn the facts of life without connecting them with shame or disgust.”

In January 1929, before Ernst had finalized his legal strategy, Dennett was indicted by the government. Almost overnight, the trial became national news, buoyed by The Sex Side of Life’s earlier endorsement by medical organizations, parents’ groups, colleges and churches. The case accomplished a significant piece of what Dennett had worked 15 years to achieve: Sex, censorship and reproductive rights were being debated across America.

During the trial, assistant U.S. attorney James E. Wilkinson called the Sex Side of Life “pure and simple smut.” Pointing at Dennett, he warned that she would “lead our children not only into the gutter, but below the gutter and into the sewer.”

None of Dennett’s expert witnesses were allowed to testify. The all-male jury took just 45 minutes to convict. Ernst filed an appeal.

In May, following Dennett’s conviction but prior to the appellate court’s ruling, an investigative reporter for the New York Telegram uncovered the source of the indictment. A postal inspector named C.E. Dunbar had been “ordered” to investigate a complaint about the pamphlet filed by an official with the Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR). Using the pseudonym Mrs. Carl Miles, Dunbar sent a decoy letter to Dennett requesting a copy of the pamphlet. Unsuspecting, Dennett mailed the copy, thereby setting in motion her indictment, arrest and trial. (Writing about the trial later, Dennett noted that the DAR official who allegedly made the complaint was never called as a witness or identified. The activist speculated, “Is she, perhaps, as mythical as Mrs. Miles?”)

Dennett’s is a name that deserves to be known.

When news of the undercover operation broke, Dennett wrote to her family that “support for the case is rolling up till it looks like a mountain range.” Leaders from the academic, religious, social and political sectors formed a national committee to raise money and awareness in support of Dennett; her name became synonymous with free speech and sex education.

In March 1930, an appellate court reversed Dennett’s conviction, setting a landmark precedent. It wasn’t the full victory Dennett had devoted much of her life to achieving, but it cracked the legal armor of censorship.

“Even though Mary Ware Dennett wasn’t a lawyer, she became an expert in obscenity law,” says constitutional historian Weinrib. “U.S. v. Dennett was influential in that it generated both public enthusiasm and money for the anti-censorship movement. It also had a tangible effect on the ACLU’s organizational policies, and it led the ACLU to enter the fight against all forms of what we call morality-based censorship.”

Ernst was back in court the following year. Citing U.S. v. Dennett, he won two lawsuits on behalf of British sex educator Marie Stopes and her previously banned books, Married Love and Contraception. Then, in 1933, Ernst expanded on arguments made in the Dennett case to encompass literature and the arts. He challenged the government’s ban on James Joyce’s Ulysses and won, in part because of the precedent set by Dennett’s case. Other important legal victories followed, each successively loosening the legal definition of obscenity. But it was only in 1970 that the Comstock Laws were fully struck down.

Ninety-two years after Dennett’s arrest, titles dealing with sex continue to top the list of the American Library Association’s most frequently challenged books. Sex education hasn’t fared much better. As of September 2021, only 18 states require sex education to be medically accurate, and only 30 states mandate sex education at all. The U.S. has one of the highestteen pregnancy rates of all developed nations.

What might Dennett think or do if she were alive today? Lauren MacIvor Thompson, a historian of early 20th-century women’s rights and public health at Kennesaw State University, takes the long view:

While it’s disheartening that we are fighting the same battles over sex and sex education today, I think that if Dennett were still alive, she’d be fighting with school boards to include medically and scientifically accurate, inclusive, and appropriate information in schools. … She’d [also] be fighting to ensure fair contraceptive and abortion access, knowing that the three pillars of education, access and necessary medical care all go hand in hand.

At the time of Dennett’s death in 1947, The Sex Side of Life had been translated into 15 languages and printed in 23 editions. Until 1964, the activist’s family continued to mail the pamphlet to anyone who requested a copy.

 “As a lodestar in the history of marginalized Americans claiming bodily autonomy and exercising their right to free speech in a cultural moment hostile to both principles,” says Gorton, “Dennett’s is a name that deserves to be known.”

Activism

Censorship

Law

Sex

Sexuality

Women’s History

Women’s Rights

Women’s Suffrage

#History

[antoine-roquentin]

Andrés Manuel López Obrador, also known as “AMLO”, is the leader of the new Mexican center-left political party named the National Regeneration Movement (MORENA). Obrador is one of the three main candidates for Mexico’s 2018 presidential elections. This will be the third time he has run for election in Mexico’s presidential race, and he is determined to achieve his goal this time.

Back in 2006, when he first campaigned to become president of Mexico, he lost to right-wing Felipe Calderón from the National Action Party (PAN) who won by a mere 0.5% of the vote, but there were many controversies and irregularities that surrounded that year’s election, mainly allegations of electoral fraud.

Then, in the 2012 presidential elections, López Obrador lost by a larger margin (by about 7%) to current Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto from the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI). There were many irregularities in that election also. The National Electoral Institute (INE), the agency in charge of overseeing the elections to assure that elections are legal and honest, admitted just in January that Peña Nieto’s campaign received illegal financing and dark money, that there were widespread allegations of coercion and vote buying by the PRI, and that the campaign even paid the people who were in charge of the polls so they could benefit Peña Nieto when they counted the votes.

All of this has led López Obrador to take “desperate measures” in order to win the 2018 elections. One of his decisions and probably one of the most controversial ones among leftist voters was the one of forming an electoral coalition with the Social Encounter Party (PES).

The Social Encounter Party is a far-right political party in Mexico created in 2006 by Hugo Eric Flores, a neo-Pentecostal pastor that supported Felipe Calderón’s campaign for Mexico’s presidency in the State of Baja California and turned it into a National Party in 2014. It has branded itself as the “Party of the Family” and its electoral base is mainly conformed by evangelical Christians. The Social Encounter Party’s own name forms an acronym which resembles the word “Pez” (fish in Spanish) which is a symbol commonly used by Christians. In its home State, Baja California, the Social Encounter Party even uses the openly-religious ichthus symbol as their party logo, although it doesn’t use it nationally.

The PES, obviously, is against same-sex marriage, abortion, contraception and even sexual education in schools. It is also the first and only Mexican Party to be openly pro-Israel even though Mexico has had a long history of non-intervention and neutrality when it comes to world affairs.

The PES was also responsible for the passing of a law in Baja California which would allow religious people and churches to discriminate if they did so because of religious reasons. The law is not valid though because Art. 1 of the Mexican Constitution states that discrimination can’t be legal in any form or circumstance (yes, even for religious reasons).

The Social Encounter Party was also very supportive of the 2016 mass protests in Mexico against same-sex marriage.

Norma Edith Martínez, a PES Congresswoman, rejected Peña Nieto’s 2016 proposal for legalizing same-sex marriage by stating that it would cause people to start marrying dolphins and laptops. This same congresswoman even created a bill that would not only allow doctors to not take care of patients if they couldn’t because of “religious convictions”, but it also sought to call sexual education in schools as “pornography”.

The Social Encounter Party is not only a conservative party, but a Christian Supremacist one, and this has created a lot of outrage from leftist voters against MORENA. Even long-time AMLO supporters, like writer Elena Poniatowska, have shown opposition to this coalition, but the people most hurt and angry by this decision are the LGBTQ+ community, feminists, and secular people, since they feel that MORENA (AMLO’s party) is throwing them under the bus just so they can now seek far-right evangelical voters.

Many LGBTQ+ activists have openly protested at AMLO rallies and meetings, like the time transwoman-activist Diana Bayardo Marroquín recriminated AMLO for the lack of support offered by the Labor Party (PT) and PES (both part of his electoral coalition) when it comes to same-sex marriage, to which Obrador simply responded that he would respect LGBTQ+ rights.

Some people may think, “Well, the PES is horrible on social issues, but it must be good on economic ones, right?”. The answer is no.

The PES has supported numerous neoliberal reforms pushed by the Peña Nieto administration, which have pretty much sought to dismantle the state-owned oil company PEMEX. Currently, they are trying to privatize education.

The PES also went into an electoral Coalition with the PRI for the State of Mexico’s gubernatorial Elections which ended in apparent electoral fraud. Just some months ago, many political analysts went so far as to call the PES a “satellite party” of the PRI.

The Social Encounter Party members are also in favor of eliminating public funding for political parties, which would privatize elections and create a system were bribery by corporations would be legal, just like in the United States.

López Obrador has stated why he decided to create a coalition with the PES, a party which only has a 3% support nationally, and he’s said that it is because MORENA “respects all beliefs systems and religions”, that the alliance has a “moral foundation”, and that he does it for the “good of the soul”.

AMLO also plans to give the PES 25% of the coalition’s candidacies, which is a lot considering that MORENA is far more popular than the PES in every way imaginable. López Obrador really wants to win in these elections, but allying with the far-right is not worth it at all. The 3% support that PES will give to MORENA is not enough to justify an alliance with Christian supremacists and even less to throw women’s, LGBTQ+ and secular people’s rights under the bus.

AMLO is up in the polls, by about 14% according to some, and even if he loses, he will be increasing the number of PES politicians in Congress by a lot, considering PES has no senators and only 10 deputies of the 500 that make up the Mexican Chamber of Deputies [so far, it appears that they picked up quite a few seats in the Senate, but their vote total appears to be lower for the Chamber than in the last election, although counting is not finished edit: counting is finished, they picked up 58 seats in the chamber and 5 in the senate, although the MORENA + PT vote seems to hold a slim majority in both chambers]. The PES is benefiting from the coalition far more than MORENA is, and the only thing that AMLO is doing is alienating leftist voters.

Yes, AMLO has said that he would “respect LGBTQ+ rights”, but that doesn’t mean anything. That statement doesn’t even mean he would legalize same-sex marriage. The only times López Obrador has talked about legalizing same-sex marriage and abortion was when he said he would put a vote on it so people can decide if it should be legal or not, but hey: human rights shouldn’t be put to debate. AMLO even said in 2015 that legalizing same-sex marriage and abortion was “not something important”.

The reason why AMLO is up in the polls is not because “people love his alliance with PES” but because he is literally the lesser of all the evils, considering the other options are the right-wing Catholic PAN, the neoliberal and heavily authoritarian PRI, and three Independent candidates that were part of corrupt political parties (as recently as just a few months ago in the case of Margarita Zavala and Armando Ríos Piter).

People are tired of the current political climate and the traditional political parties (PRI, PAN, and PRD). AMLO should use this to his advantage and show everyone that MORENA isn’t like the other parties. Obrador’s alliances with the PES, PT and former PRI and PAN politicians are turning him into the very thing he sought to destroy.

[ruminationofthepast]

1.         Reformers wanted to restore decency. Anthony Comstock was a man concerned with the righteousness of society. He was greatly opposed to alcohol, gambling prostitutes and pornography. He, as well as those who formed part of the YMCA, pressured the government to make changes. He eventually led to the creation of what became known as the Comstock laws.

Determined to enforce proper behavior, Comstock’s power extended to issues of birth control and abortion. He believed in procreation of life. If people had sex for pleasure then it was considered sinful and wrong.

           Doctors asserted abortion was wrong because it kept women from committing to their obligations. The American Medical Association undermined practices by the less educated.

They claimed that ignorant, non-professionals performed abortions, putting the lives of women at risk of death or injury. They pushed for laws to ban advertisements for birth control and abortion. Laws were passed in favor of Comstock, making it illegal for distribution of information regarding birth control or abortions. In addition medication to serve for these purpose were also banned. Comstock attempted to keep people from disorderly conduct. He wanted women to assume their roles as wives and mothers and for men to be upright and proper. Since men often visited brothels and saloons, contraception made it easier for them to be unfaithful. Anthony Comstock’s Society for the Suppression of Vice served as a censorship squat. He was armed with federal authority to help his cause.

           Many women rejected Comstockery. Victoria Woodhull was a feminist spokesperson that Comstock consistently had arrested. She exposed some of “the best men” having has sexual affairs with “the worst women in our city”. She criticized New York’s sexual hypocrisy regarding these matters. Emma Goldman and Susan B. Anthony were also influential feminists. The most powerful was Margaret Sanger. She was a woman determined to take down Comstock and defended women’s rights. As a nurse who had witnessed the impact of Comstock’s laws on women, she decided to educate women on birth control and defended abortions. She was in pursuit of fundamental social change. The column, What Every Girl Should Know, depicts her concerns. Sanger later cuts ties with radicals and sets up Planned Parenthood with the help and resources of powerful, wealthy women. Through social movements led by women, Comstock eventually became a symbol of old fashioned values. Margaret Sanger and the work of other women led to laws changing. Her intent on raising public issues led to great changes for women’s rights.

2.         The Prohibition Era led to the creation of criminal organizations. The Anti-Saloon League’s attempts at exterminating all vice failed. Because of the lack of supply and the rise in demand, gangs saw the opportunity of wealth and power. Arnold R. as a result became involved with the bootlegging industry. He was the “Brain” of the underworld. He had no problem working with any person. Although he didn’t control gang operations, all factions needed him. He assisted Jewish gangsters like Lansky. When the Volstead act came along, Rothstein mentored Lansky into a professional criminal. He got him into bootlegging. He provided him with structure for the operations. He was a banking support and had vast amounts of connections that benefited organized criminals greatly. The loans he gave the gangsters allowed them to accumulate liquid capital.

The Irish including Fay, Dwyer and Madden were some of the men he helped. Larry Fay invested his money in a cab, which turned into a great business of hundreds of signature cabs. He eventually branched out into the entertainment business. Dwyer and Madden were also Irish men whom he helped. He started them off with loans and explained to them how they could make profits. He made way for gangsters to transport drugs alcohol in and out of the city. He was literally the Brain of business during this time.

He was influential to the Italians in NYC. He helped them break into the world of New York’s organized criminality. The Americanized Italians deviated from the close-minded, old country thinking. They wanted to maximize their contacts and wanted to take part in crime on a more professional basis. Rothstein did just this. Men like Luciano and Costello turned to him for advancement. He taught them how to use profits to set up gambling and bookmaking operations.

He also started them off in bootlegging.

The gangs received financial and strategic assistance from Arnold Rothstein. He set up a foundations for them and advised them what to do. He set them up and they would later adapt his business methods, connections and eventually adapted their own creative techniques using technology. He transformed organized crime into businesses that he ran like a corporation. His death, due to a gambling debt, led to the eventual collapse of the empire he had helped build. He had been the New York gang’s stabilizing force.

3.         After the Prohibition, the NYC gangsters moved into gambling and labor/business racketeering. Schultz moves into gambling and takes over. He has a strong force working for him and has a violent approach at getting what he wants. Inclusively, he has Jimmy protect him from law enforcement. When Schultz saw and opportunity he went for it. He was in the racketeering business and brought order to the industry.

Costello, Luciano, Buchalter (STILL WORKING ON IT)

LaGuardia and Dewey attempted to combat crime. Dewey is a critical gangbuster and fights against organized crime. He goes after Costello, Luciano, Buchalter and Schultz. He tries to get Schultz on tax evasion and tries tog et him killed.

4.         In the mid 1800’s there black people in NYC were pushed out of neighborhoods. They had poor jobs as servants. Women were maids, waitresses or laundress. Men would work on farms or go to sea. The white people refused to work with them. They’d be offended to be treated as equals to blacks. In the late 1800’s there were civil rights acts that helped them gain civil, legal rights. Plessey v. Ferguson, decided it was okay to be separate so long as they are equal.

By the mid 1900’s there was little to no progress for the Black community. There was segregation in public accommodations, transportations, housing, employment and schools.

Jobs became competitive between blacks and whites. There was segregation since it was appalling for whites to be treated equal to blacks, the NAACP was a powerful organization founded in the early 1900’s. The New Deal helps the civil rights movements. There are bank loans granted to people during this time of reform, however they only help people that won’t be an economic risk.

Right when there was about to be a declaration of war, the organizations demanded that they not be segregated. They all go out to the White House and demand to join part of the armed forces.

5.         The major source of heroine comes from Turkey. It is shipped to NYC and it is the critical focal point for items coming in on boats. NYC becomes the wholesale of drugs. The strategy of smuggling heroine to the U.S. through Canada became known as the French Connection. After the confiscation of large amounts of heroine, the Special Investigation Unit was created. There were attempts of putting a stop to drug trafficking in the U.S., but there were many corrupt officials. Drugs would go missing or sometimes law enforcers  would participate in the trafficking business.

Drugs such as cocaine and opium are also imported to NYC. Cocaine came from Columbia and was transported through planes or boats to Florida. Cocaine was expensive so crack became the more affordable version of the drug. The DEA was created to fight the rise in drug trafficking in the U.S. Reagan militarizes the war on drugs. There is a serious force that is effective at breaking off drug transportation into the U.S.

6.         The mafia experienced a crisis in the 1980’s up until now. The development and organization of the government on a federal and state level raised problems. They developed new methods of warfare against the mob.

There were also internal issues within the mafia. The new generation of Italians that gave rise did not accept old rules.

Gotti gets Castellano killed. He is a social and very popular man. There is a new set of concerns.

There is no longer those strong traditions or loyalty.

7.         There was competition from most of the world and it greatly impacted NYC. There was a rise of challengers in NYC that threatened Italian control of organized crime. Competition impacts the Italian mafia, since the new wave of immigrants have worthy skills.

[Irish, Russians. African Americans. Columbians, Dominicans, Chinese, Vietnamese]

The Russians are skilled at forgery and scam. They set up dummy corporations and arranged so that they would get the money on their account. These were multi dollar corporations. The Russians made business with Italians since they had connections and deemed it beneficial. The Vietnamese have connections with sources of heroine. The African Americans also use connections and attempt to set up a network. They rely on the Mafia.

8. STILL WORKING ON IT

9. STILL WORKING ON IT

[cameoamalthea]

Why is NSFW 18 +

This post is focused on U.S. law, policy and culture. This post does not constitute legal advice. This blog does not offer legal advice. And a lot of this is my own personal opinion. 

Let’s get something straight, America was founded by puritans and if conservative lawmakers could outright ban porn, they would.

However, the 1st amendment gives U.S. citizen a right to free speech and freedom of speech and expression is another important American value.

The Supreme Court has ruled that laws cannot “reduce the adult population...to reading only what is fit for children.” (source). Because adults have a right to freedom of speech.

However, minors do not have the same rights as adults.  “The Government may, however, regulate the content of constitutionally protected speech in order to promote a compelling interest if it chooses the least restrictive means to further the articulated interest. We have recognized that there is a compelling interest in protecting the physical and psychological well-being of minors. This interest extends to shielding minors from the influence of literature that is not obscene by adult standards. Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629, 639 -640 (1968); New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 756 -757 (1982). (source).

That’s why the government can restrict what you’re allowed to look at until you turn 18. You just don’t have as many rights as adults. Your parents, and the government can decide what’s best for you.

Of course, the age of consent varies and is 16 in most states. Which begs the question if an individual can consent to sex then why aren’t minors allowed to view pornography?

Simply viewing a video of other people having sex carries none of these that having sex does, so if you can have sex, why can’t you watch porn?

(I suggest using the xkit read more on dash function or reading on mobile)

First, age of consent is different than age of majority. Until you’re 18 you aren’t legally an adult and you have less rights than an adult. The U.S. is one of the few countries that hasn’t ratified the UN’s Convention on the Rights of the Child. Instead, the U.S. believes parents have a fundamental right to control how their children are raised and the Government can also have a say (such as mandating public Education until a certain age).The Government has an interest in controlling what minors are allowed to do, and in theory makes laws to protect minors.

Second, it’s important to understand that in the U.S. Age of Consent is, unfortunately, is not always about protecting minors or serving their best interests. It’s about controlling them or protecting them making poor choices, rather than empowering them to make good choices and protecting them from exploitation.

In the U.S. minors are often treated as their parents property. This contributes to the sexual exploitation of minors (which I condemn in this post, and needs to be wildly unequivocally condemned) because our society doesn’t always think of protecting minors as vulnerable people rather than malleable objects and culturally too many people seem to not understand why minors are vulnerable to exploitation and why exploiting them is wrong. The unfortunate prevalence of child marriage in some parts of the US (also discussed in the post I linked) is a symptom of this.

In the U.S. there are some States where a minor can’t get an abortion without parental consent or court order (and that’s dangerous as there are parents who might punish a teenager for getting pregnant or force them into marriage). Even in more liberal states, like California the age of consent is 18 and it is criminal for teens to have sex. Sex between two teens (like two 16 year olds) or teens and young adults with three year apart in age (a 17 year old and a 20 year year old) is a misdemeanor. If a 15 year old is dating a 17 year old and the 17 year old turns 18, then that would be a felony. Teenagers can be punished for having sex other teenagers, with classmates and peers, even teens their own age (though less severely). The rationale behind the law isn’t protecting teenagers, it’s discouraging teenage pregnancy by punishing boys who have sex with girls.

Often, age of consent laws and statutory rape laws in the U.S. are about preventing a girl from doing something that would bring shame on her family. So at once you have teens punished for having consensual sex with other teens and parents pushing a pregnant 11 year old girls to marry her adult rapist so she won’t have a baby out of wedlock (both these things happened in Florida, age of consent has an exception for marriage with parental consent - it’s sickening).

In theory age of consent laws are supposed to be about when, in the State’s view, a person is old enough to want and desire sex and be capable of knowingly consent to it. In practice, age of consent laws are the age where the state figures teens are going to have sex and the state should let them (or at least not punish them).

Side Note: Personally, I’d support a system more like Germany’s where teenagers are allowed to consent to sex instead of being characterized as children (because teens are having sex whether they should be or not, abstinence preaching isn’t effective and teens should have a right to their own bodies and relationships), but exploitation and abuse of teenagers is illegal. Teens are vulnerable to exploitation and abuse. Focus laws on protecting them from predators, not controlling their behavior. Put the power in their own hands, and extend protection until age 21 to prevent older predators from targeting barely legal teens (whether they’re legal at 16 or 18, protect them).

Ok, so why not let teens have porn? Teens wouldn’t get pregnant by watching porn. And in some states teens can have sex at 16, but not have porn until they’re 18. Porn is safer than sex.

American culture is puritanical and not in favor of sex out of wedlock. Even in states where lawmakers acknowledge that teens have sex at 16 (on average, most people have sex by 17) and decided not to criminalize their relationships, it’s not that they want teens to have sex, it’s just they don’t want to use police power to stop them.  

There’s a fear porn will encourage sex. While media doesn’t change behavior (violent video games don’t make you violent, porn doesn’t change how you view women), the fear is if we don’t treat sex like a forbidden sin only for married people the culture might change to accept sex outside of wedlock. (I mean, look at California, giving teens free contraceptives would prevent teen pregnancy as effectively, if not more so, than arresting teens for sleeping together, but the law goes with deterring sex. Studies show abstinence only education doesn’t work, but in many states it’s pushed).

“Sex is dirty and wrong.” It’s part of sex negative puritan culture. Sure, at the same time traditional values links masculinity with men being able get women and encourages women to be ‘sexy’ and do things boys will like, the fact remains sex outside of marriage is taboo. Women are supposed to be pure. A man who is a player has managed to steal a precious guarded resource. A woman who  is a slut has lost her worth because she didn’t guard herself. These are the sexist heterosexist norms, and they don’t really frame sex as a consensual thing that people choose to do.

Since our culture isn’t in favor of sex or porn, the government sees it as harmful, just like alcohol and cigarettes. As an adult, you’re free to make your own choices, even bad choices like smoking. That’s freedom. As a minor, you aren’t free yet.

The fact is, especially with the internet, plenty of minors start watching porn as young as 12 because that’s when they hit puberty and want to look at it. Just like plenty of teens experiment with underage drinking. Although a 12 year old boy looking at boobies isn’t as harmful as drinking and a 16 year old watching porn instead of having sex would certainly be safer, it’s still something the government can restrict.

And really, it is safer to wait until you’re over 18 because venturing into 18+ spaces. Because again, minors are at risk vulnerable and at risk for sexual exploitation. Especially for girls and women, venturing into adult spaces means risk of sexual harassment and potentially falling victims to predators who would seek to prey on the inexperienced.

This can still happen once you’re over 18, as I found out when I started exploring things at 18 (the only place I found safe was y!gal - a yaoi website - because anywhere that had content straight guys could enjoy was full of really creepy straight guys). But at 18, you also have more support. You have access to sex education and can freely talk about things with other adults. Adults can’t really talk to minors about sex or sexuality because there’s too much risk that predators would use that as an opportunity to target and manipulate minors. At 18, especially if you’re in college, you can learn about sex and question porn and sexual morality.

If society and the law let minors access porn and go to sex shops or workshops in places where minors can legally have sex at 16, it would probably be seen encouraging minors to have sex, which moral authorities would see as corrupting the youth. The general culture says you shouldn’t be having sex, so even in states that don’t criminally discourage it, they don’t encourage it.

Furthermore, media is made by adults. Porn is made by adults for other adults (at least officially, I’m pretty sure plenty of bad porn fics is written by 13 year olds). So if you’re watching porn, you’re not watching media that’s meant for your understanding or maturity level. 

You don’t really have the opportunity to learn about sex outside of watching porn (other than by doing it, but that doesn’t teach you what sex is supposed to be) or to talk about it. Porn isn’t realistic, and the thought is minors are less equipped than adults to be able to tell if something is a good idea or not. And how can you know what’s realistic or healthy if no one can talk to you about sex because all you get is ‘sex is bad, don’t do it until you’re married and then it will be good, somehow’.

In the U.S. the drinking age is 21. That’s one of the highest drinking ages in the world. Underage drinking happens, especially at Universities where you have a mixed peer group of under drinking age and of drinking age students. While the risks of alcohol don’t change between 20 and 21, it’s safer to drink legally because you’re allowed to drink in restaurants and with your parents and with other people who have experience drinking and can help you learn how to drink safely, as opposed to chugging beer illegally at 18 because you don’t know what you’re doing and can’t do it openly.

The fact people under 18 can’t view porn or go into sex shop shops or go into NSFW spaces online or IRL makes doing it illegally more dangerous.

At the same time, I don’t know if I’d support lowering the age you can view porn. Your body is your own and plenty of teens want sex and choose to have sex. I don’t think we should punish a 16 or even a 14 or 15  year old who wants to have sex (it happens) instead we should protect them from abuse and exploitation and help them make safe choices. The right to control over your own body, what you do with it, who you love and want to be with seems fundamental. The right to watch a video...not so much. Especially when allowing 16 year olds into NSFW spaces might put them at greater risk of mingling with much older people who might be predatory.

Then again, in Europe, plenty of countries let people under 18 have porn, but they also have better sex education. Before America changes law and policy about  whether or not minors can view porn, we need to make more basic changes like having decent sex education and banning child marriage for the love of God.

@tadpoledancer - And I know that at 16, being 18 seems like forever and waiting to go one websites or read fics might seem unfair. However, it’s really not that long to wait. Once you’re 18, you can do whatever you want, and hopefully you’ll go to college or university and find so much to discover about yourself. Stay safe. Maybe stick to pg 13 or R rated things or what you can find on Netflix or the library? (the dirtiest thing I watched in High School was probably HBO’s Queer as Folk censored for reruns on Logo, but it was still fun).

@daenon - thoughts? 

[wikiablogger]

Change the Law Regarding Sex with Minors

Consequences for Both Parties Involved in the Act of Sex with a Minor

Our current laws are designed to punish the older participant of a sexual encounter whether they are male or female with no punishment are responsibility to the younger participant.

There are thousands of cases where the male has been incarcerated for having sex with a minor and nothing happens to the female.

We have all heard how a girl concealed her age and voluntarily had sex with an older person. When this occurs it’s not the girl that gets in trouble with the law but the person that has been deceived.

As a concerned citizen I am trying to prevent this from ever happening again. When the girl/boy is made responsible as well for the act of sex with another person then this injustice of incarceration of individuals will decrease drastically and the lives of good people will be preserved.

There are numerous cases where a male has sex with a girl and discovers that she is underage and gets incarcerated. This is a serious offense and one that can ruin a person’s life. Consider this story:

A male went to a club where you had to be eighteen or older. During his time there he hooked up with a female and ultimately they went somewhere and had sex. Several days later the parents of the girl discovered the relationship and filed charges against the male because their daughter was under the age of eighteen. The outcome is that the male goes to jail and possibly has to register as a sex offender. The girl goes on with her life as normal and is free to put another male in jail. The girl had a fake ID and knew what she was doing when she obtained it. How did the eighteen and older club not catch that this was a fake ID? Shouldn’t they be responsible in some way as well for allowing this underage female into the club? 

Consider this story as well:

A male and female start talking and seeing each other and decide to have sex. The female didn’t tell the male her age. This female looked considerably older than what she actually was and when she eventually told the male her age he told her he could not see her again. She said she wouldn’t tell her mother or anyone else and he still said he couldn’t because he didn’t want to get into trouble.  She told her mother and now this male is sitting in jail.  This is a lie of omission and this young lady should be the one in trouble not the male. Just as the female in the example above this person is allowed to continue on as if she did nothing wrong and live her life as normal.

The law says these girls are not of age to know the difference between right and wrong when it comes to sex. Stealing, vandalism, murder, etc… are offenses they can be punished for under the law for but not sex. This is beyond unbelievable and this needs to be changed! The law states that a minor hasn’t the emotional wherewithal to make a decision to have or not have sex. This is not what this petition is debating but rather it is trying to get enough people to agree that both parties should bear the consequences of their actions. Also if one of the parties involved lied or deceived the other party regarding their age they should be the ones punished instead of the other party involved. When minors realize that this is against the law then they will think hard and long about engaging in sex until they are of legal age.

Kyle Joseph Scott who is a Sexual Harassment Attorney states that in California the age of consent is 18. Therefore he says that when two minors engage in sexual activity then each of them is considered to be a victim and a perpetrator. Even though both minors are not emotionally and mentally capable of giving their consent to sexual activity they have the good sense to know they are engaging in an illegal act.

There are many articles to found on the internet such as “Girls Who Lie About Their Age Should Be Charged With A Sex Crime” and this petition echo’s this  charge.

In today’s promiscuous sexual revolution females are taught that sex is to be used and flaunted in front of the males. As a result, the United States leads the world in teen pregnancy and there are 19 million new STD infections every single year. Our society is teaching girls of all ages that sex is what being a female is all about. Consider the facts below for how this is validated and played out in our society:

·       There are 19 million new STD infections in the United States every single year.  Approximately half of them happen to young people in the 15 to 24-year-old age bracket.

·       There were more than 1.4 million cases of chlamydia reported in the United States in 2011.  An astounding 33 percent of those cases involved Americans that were younger than 20 years of age.

·       It is estimated that about one out of every six Americans between the ages of 14 and 49 have genital herpes.

·       In the United States today, approximately 47 percent of all high school students have had sex.

·       Sadly, one out of every four teen girls in the U.S. has at least one sexually transmitted disease.

·       According to one survey, 24 percent of all U.S. teens that have STDs say that they still have unprotected sex.

·       Amazingly, one out of every five teen girls in the U.S. actually wants to be a teenage mother.

·       If you can believe it, the United States has the highest teen pregnancy rate on the entire planet.  In fact, the United States has a teen pregnancy rate that is more than twice as high as Canada, more than three times as high as France and more than seven times as high as Japan.

·       The sexual revolution has caused women to be primarily looked at as sex objects.  In this kind of environment, it should be no surprise that there has been an absolute explosion of pornography in recent years.  An astounding 30 percent of all Internet traffic now goes to pornography websites, and the U.S. produces more pornography than any other nation has in the history of the world.

(Snyder, M., 2013, para. 1).

 American women are being destroyed by the sexual revolution and our promiscuous culture… and the lives of young men are being destroyed by girls giving in to this promiscuous behavior.

This also brings up another problem. Thousands of men are spending time in jail or prison for having engaged in sex with a minor. In many of the cases the girl concealed her age either by not telling the man how old she was or she lied outright about how old she was. What occurs is that the man is the offender and he alone is punished. In cases such as this the girl should be the one that is punished and not the man. The lack of commonsense in our laws is appalling and this is one instance where it is illuminated. How is a man to protect himself from this? Girls falsify their Id’s to get into clubs and to obtain alcoholic beverages and if the club owner can’t make the distinction then how is the man that chooses to have sex with the girl going to know this. Girls are constantly having sex with men knowing that they are not of legal age and they need to be held responsible for their actions. When this occurs the man should be exonerated of any wrong doing and the girl should be the one paying the price for her illegal actions. This is no difference than baiting, setting a trap, entrapment or whatever you want to call it and the girl should be the one getting in trouble with the law not the man.

 So what can be done about any of this?

Making girls responsible for their sexual misbehavior is where it starts. If the girl realizes that she too will be punished as severally under the law as the male or in cases where she lied or concealed her age and suffers the punishment by herself then we will see a drastic reduction of this sexual offense taking place. The old adage “it takes two to tangle” is so apropos in this situation. When the girls are facing jail time the majority of them will cease to sleep around.

Parents, guardians, school officials, the media, and others that have an influence in a young girl’s life need to step up to their responsibilities of providing for their well-being. Schools that have adopted the foolish and irresponsible act of teaching safe sex, offering contraceptives to the children, providing help for abortions, and keeping the parents in the dark regarding the child’s sexual behavior has got to stop. What they are engaging in is the contribution to a crime being committed. What they need to be teaching is that having sex before reaching the age of maturity (according to the law) is against the law and doing so will among other things destroy many young men’s lives. When this takes place and loose sexuality is no longer glorified or seen as acceptable behavior we will see these cases of statutory rape decline considerably.

Bottom line is that it is illegal for minors to be participating in any sexual activity. The problem is that the law goes after the older participant and not the younger party. In no way is this addressing the case of rape. That is another issue all together and has nothing to do with what this petition is talking about.

By signing your name to this petition you are saying to our government officials to pass a law that makes the girl that has not been forthcoming of her age as responsible, if not the only one responsible, to the act of sex with the male. You are also speaking out to the school officials to start teaching the young girls that having sex before reaching the legal age is illegal and can result in destroying the lives of those they have sex with. This message also strongly encourages parents and anyone that has an influence in the lives of minors to be good role models and teach their children the law on having sex before the legal age.

 Concern Citizens for Justice

  Reference:

Snyder, M., (2013).  25 Signs American Women Are Being Destroyed By The Sexual Revolution And Our Promiscuous Culture. Retrieved on April 7, 2015 from: endoftheamericandream.com/archives/25-signs-american...

https://www.change.org/p/u-s-house-of-representatives-change-the-law-regarding-sex-with-minors

[paige-s-pages]

Fertility research master post

NEW IDEAS BASED ON FERTILITY, WOMEN’S RIGHTS, POSITIONS OF POWER OVER WOMEN’S BODIES 

What foods are meant to help with fertility? 

‘…there are so many bodily functions that occur behind the scenes that are responsible for making this natural process happen, and the foods we eat can affect the level of our hormones, quality of our blood and its circulation, and how well our brain is able to send messages to the rest of our body - all things that play a role our fertility.’ - https://www.mother.ly/lifestyle/7-best-foods-boost-fertility' 

Wild salmon, quinoa, low fat greek yoghurt, spinach, lentils, blueberries, oysters

This article is by a women written for other women to help become healthy and boost your immune system to have a child. This is not so much a control thing rather than something to help with women who want to conceive. 

https://www.buzzfeed.com/carolinekee/crazy-historical-birth-control-methods 

I have found out that Egyptian people often used honey and acacia leaves as a spermicide or to stick ‘tampons’ in their vaginas. Honey is important. 

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/286666 

The ancient Roman gynecologist Soranus thought that women should take responsibility for the withdrawal method by doing the following: holding their breath when they believed their parter was ejaculating, then getting up immediately after intercourse to squat and sneeze repeatedly, then washing out their vagina. Because, sure. 

tarting around 700 BCE, the ancient Romans would use bladders from goats, sheep, and other animals to wrap around the penis during sexual intercourse. Apparently, the Romans were invested in ideas of public health and created this method to "protect women" and prevent the transmission of venereal diseases like syphilis.

Although these goat-bladder condoms were originally intended for protection against venereal diseases, they ended up being a pretty effective contraceptive method and people used them well into the Medieval Period. 

7. Smearing cedar oil and frankincense in the vagina - Although it sounds more like a potpourri or an air freshener, this natural ointment mixture was a popular contraception method around the fourth century in ancient Greece. Women would smear a mixture of cedar oil, frankincense, and sometimes lead into their vaginas and around their cervix to prevent pregnancy. It was believed that the oil mixture acted as a spermicide, and it was actually recommended by Aristotle in his early medical texts.

Around the 16th century in Elizabethean England, women were advised to wash their genitals and douche using vinegar — like the same kind you clean with.

"Women sometimes used other harsh astringents in the vagina before sex, because they believed it would kill sperm," Minkin says. Vinegar-soaked sponges were apparently a popular option for Elizabethan prostitutes

Imagine cutting a lemon in half and juicing it so the rind forms a little cap. Starting around the mid-17th century, women would insert this into their vagina before sex — the idea was that the rind would prevent sperm from entering the uterus through the cervix and the acidic juice would kill sperm, too.

"The mechanism of the lemon cervical cap, blocking the cervix, is the same idea behind the modern rubber cervical cap invented in 1927, which is still used with spermicide as a contraception today," Minkin says.

It's worth mentioning that many people in the US had to use alternative or outdated methods even up until the 1950s, because the use of modern contraception (like condoms, diaphragms, and pills) was a punishable crime. Actually, birth control was illegal in the US for nearly a century under the Comstock Act passed in 1873.

"Birth control wasn't officially legal until 1965 after the Supreme Court ruling in Griswold v. Connecticut, which made it unconstitutional for the government to prohibit married couples from using birth control," Minkin says. So we've technically only had access to safe, effective birth control for about fifty years.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/pill-anthony-comstocks-chastity-laws/ 

As late as 1960, the American legal system was not hospitable to the idea of birth control. Thirty states had statutes on the books prohibiting or restricting the sale and advertisement of contraception. These laws stretched back almost a century, reflecting an underlying American belief that contraception was lewd, immoral and promoted promiscuity.

Comstock's Crusade

The driving force behind the original anti-birth control statutes was a New Yorker named Anthony Comstock. Born in rural Connecticut in 1844, Comstock served in the infantry during the Civil War, then moved to New York City and found work as a salesman. A devout Christian, he was appalled by what he saw in the city's streets. It seemed to him that the town was teeming with prostitutes and pornography. In the late 1860s, Comstock began supplying the police with information for raids on sex trade merchants and came to prominence with his anti-obscenity crusade. Also offended by explicit advertisements for birth control devices, he soon identified the contraceptive industry as one of his targets. Comstock was certain that the availability of contraceptives alone promoted lust and lewdness.

Making Birth Control a Federal Crime

In 1872 Comstock set off for Washington with an anti-obscenity bill, including a ban on contraceptives, that he had drafted himself. On March 3, 1873, Congress passed the new law, later known as the Comstock Act. The statute defined contraceptives as obscene and illicit, making it a federal offense to disseminate birth control through the mail or across state lines.

Public Support for Comstock Laws

This statute was the first of its kind in the Western world, but at the time, the American public did not pay much attention to the new law. Anthony Comstock was jubilant over his legislative victory. Soon after the federal law was on the books, twenty-four states enacted their own versions of Comstock laws to restrict the contraceptive trade on a state level.

The Most Restrictive States

New England residents lived under the most restrictive laws in the country. In Massachusetts, anyone disseminating contraceptives -- or information about contraceptives -- faced stiff fines and imprisonment. But by far the most restrictive state of all was Connecticut, where the act of using birth control was even prohibited by law. Married couples could be arrested for using birth control in the privacy of their own bedrooms, and subjected to a one-year prison sentence. In actuality, law enforcement agents often looked the other way when it came to anti-birth control laws, but the statutes remained on the books.

Sanger's Crusade

These laws remained unchallenged until birth-control advocate Margaret Sanger made it her mission to challenge the Comstock Act. The first successful change in the laws came from Sanger's 1916 arrest for opening the first birth control clinic in America. The case that grew out of her arrest resulted in the 1918 Crane decision, which allowed women to use birth control for therapeutic purposes.

Changing Laws for Changing Times

The next amendment of the Comstock Laws came with the 1936 U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision, United States v. One Package. The decision made it possible for doctors to distribute contraceptives across state lines. This time Margaret Sanger had been instrumental in maneuvering behind the scenes to bring the matter before the court. While this decision did not eliminate the problem of the restrictive "chastity laws" on the state level, it was a crucial ruling. Physicians could now legally mail birth control devices and information throughout the country, paving the way for the legitimization of birth control by the medical industry and the general public.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/pill-boston-pill-trials/ 

https://www.bustle.com/articles/72266-the-6-craziest-birth-control-methods-in-history-from-weasel-testicles-to-crocodile-poop 

Many old-fashioned contraceptive methods display an impressive, if rudimentary, understanding of how conception and pregnancy occurred. The weasel testicle method is not one of them. Many medieval Europeans believed that weasel testicles could prevent conception — if they were hung around a woman's neck like an amulet during intercourse (and, presumably, were removed from the body of the weasel beforehand).

But if weasel balls hanging from around your neck sounds like a turn off, don't worry! You could also wear weasel testicles around your thigh for birth control purposes. Charms made from donkey poop, a mule's uterus, or a specific bone from the body of a black cat were also believed to offer the same level of magical pregnancy protection.

And if that last one didn't work? Many medieval folks believed it meant the wearer had selected a cat whose fur was not dark enough. I am not happy that anyone got unintentionally pregnant using this method, but it would kind of have been funny to watch the arguments that resulted ("I told you that cat wasn't dark enough! What are we going to do now?!").

https://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/2613/9611/6275/History_of_BC_Methods.pdf - read this 

Not all crazy birth control methods date back to ancient pre-technology societies.

In the 1950s, the idea spread that the carbonic acid in Coca-Cola killed sperm, the sugar exploded sperm cells and the carbonation of the drink forced the liquid into the vagina. So it became an after-sex douche: Women would shake up a bottle, insert it and let the soda fly.

Lots of women throughout history thought the answer to pregnancy was flushing it all away. Native American women tried steaming sperm out using a special kettle; others have tried seawater, vinegar, lemon juice and other acidic liquids.

As we all know, spermicide isn’t effective at stopping pregnancy once the seed is already inside the vagina, so steaming it never stood a chance. 

As cited in an ancient medical manuscript dating back to 1550 B.C., women were told to grind dates, acacia tree bark and honey together into a paste and apply the mixture to seed wool, which would be inserted vaginally.

The acacia in the cotton fermented into lactic acid, which has spermicidal properties, and the wool served as a physical barrier blocking insemination. These proto-diaphragms were buried with women so they wouldn’t get pregnant in the afterlife either. 

Tallents, Carolyn. "7 Best Foods To Boost Fertility." Motherly. February 09, 2019. Accessed June 06, 2019. https://www.mother.ly/lifestyle/7-best-foods-boost-fertility.

"The Pill and the Sexual Revolution." PBS. Accessed June 06, 2019. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/pill-and-sexual-revolution/.

"The Boston Pill Trials." PBS. Accessed June 06, 2019. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/pill-boston-pill-trials/.

Kee, Caroline. "13 Historical Birth Control Methods That Should Stay In The Past." BuzzFeed. March 21, 2017. Accessed June 06, 2019. https://www.buzzfeed.com/carolinekee/crazy-historical-birth-control-methods.

Targonskaya, Anna. "Ancient Birth Control Methods: How Did Women in Ancient Times Prevent Pregnancy?" Flo.health - #1 Mobile Product for Women's Health. January 02, 2019. Accessed June 06, 2019. https://flo.health/menstrual-cycle/sex/birth-control/ancient-birth-control-methods.

[honeybadgerradio]

Scaring Sons Into Suicide – Polecat Cast 115

Mattress Girl returns! Urban Dictionary! Wonder Woman! All this and more on this week’s Polecat Cast!

Show Notes:

Urban Warfare By Mike J.

Founded in 1999, the website Urban Dictionary has served as little more than a fun way to waste. The site allows users to add and define words or phrases, some of which more contemporary dictionaries wouldn’t dare touch. Other users then vote up or vote down these newly defined words with the highest voted ones winning the honor of being displayed more prominently than it’s rivals. Since it’s launch Urban Dictionary has become a good source for picking up cutting edge internet slang. At one point, IBM decided to upload the entire Urban Dictionary to their supercomputer Watson, but after the machine began swearing incessantly, the new lexicon was promptly removed. The Urban Dictionary has also become an unlikely battleground of sorts recently in the battle for men’s right’s. Several of the more controversial definitions such as misogynist, rape, feminism, and MRA have received popular definitions that many feminists do not approve of. It seems that not being content with ruining the Oxford English Dictionary, feminists have now set their sights on doing the same to the Urban Dictionary. But where it was much easier to make the Oxford English Dictionary kowtow with pressure from feminist in academia, the fight against Urban Dictionary won’t be that easily won.

Source: http://www.bodyforwife.com/mens-rights-activists-have-taken-over-urban-dictionary/ https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/01/ibms-watson-memorized-the-entire-urban-dictionary-then-his-overlords-had-to-delete-it/267047/ http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/01/26/dictionarygate-twitter-feminists-force-dictionary-to-review-sexist-definitions-of-nag-and-bossy/

Rape Victims Shouldn’t Like to Relive Their Rapes By Max Derrat

More famously known as Mattress Girl, Sulkowicz is back in the news, topping her past maniacal exploits. Originally, Sulkowicz proclaimed she was raped to her University, and when they decided that the evidence was against her (not that there was a lack of evidence, but that the available evidence was AGAINST HER) she proceeded to carry around a mattress for her senior year as a form of art and a form of protest. Then she did a video re-enactment of her rape online, titled Ceci N’est Pas Un Viol (French for “this is not a rape).

Now, she’s doing BDSM as performance art. At the Elizabeth Foundation for the Arts Project Space, she presented a piece called “The Ship is Sinking”. She describes her piece in her own words: “[I chose] to have a white man tie me up while wearing a business suit with a Whitney necktie, while I wear a Whitney ISP thong bikini.” “We’re acting out this sadistic-masochistic relationship between the institution with all of its financial power, and this program that wants to be political but can be really because it’s being tied up by this institution.”

As her performance started, the aforementioned white man, named Master Avery (who happened to be a professional dominatrix), started to insult Sulkowicz by saying things like, “Your boobs are too small”, and “You can’t even stand up straight.” He tied knots around several parts of her body for 45 minutes until she was completely tied up to a large wooden beam. Using a pulley system attached to the ceiling, she was lifted from the ground, purposefully trying to resemble the woman often seen at the front of a ship.

Then Master Avery started hitting her with a belt. Avery at one point asked if anybody wanted to participate, and one man from the audience volunteered. He proceeded to slap her across the face.

In respect to the purpose of her performance art, Sulkowicz said the following: “Historically, performance art has been a very important medium for women of color and queer people. There’s an accessibility to it, it’s the only art form that doesn’t cost money. Then there’s also that women, people of color, queer people, we live embodied history.” “My body already carries material in it just because of the way I look, it’s embedded in my skin. White men have the privilege of entire institutions built for their paintings… these paintings are very often abstract. You have people like Pollock splattering a bunch of shit and then saying it’s art. It doesn’t say anything political and in fact, that actual political statement it does say is: ‘I’m a white man and I can do whatever the fuck I want and make a ton of money off of it.”

Source: https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/mattress-girl-emma-sulkowicz-is-backand-channeling-her-rage-through-bdsm

ENOUGH With This Wonder Woman Bullshit By Max Derrat

You know that really innocuous, unimportant women-only Wonder Woman screening thing? People are apparently still talking about it for some reason, and it’s mostly because people are making so much out of it, on both sides.

One of the people fanning the flames of this intense reaction is Heat Street writer Stephen Miller. He bought a ticket to this “women-only” screening at the Alamo Drafthouse in Brooklyn, New York, and posted a picture of his receipt on Twitter. He expressed a desire to not cause a scene, and replied the following to anybody expressing anger at his choice: “I’ll be enjoying the film with the ticket I purchased.” He also pointed out that kicking him out specifically on the grounds of sex or gender identity would be illegal. It doesn’t seem like Miller is doing this to make any positive statement. After all, in his Twitter feed, he constantly refers to the Wonder Woman movie as the “Chris Pine superhero movie.” To conclude, one Twitter user named @Bro_Pair wrote the following in response to this: “Some men lay down their lives battling white supremacists on the streets. Others demand admittance to the women-only Wonder Woman screening.” This is clearly in reference to last Friday’s Portland murders. The Daily Mail classified the murderer in this case as a self-avowed Nazi supporter, when minimal research concludes that any supposed ties to Nazi’s were disproven as false flags by the murderer to discredit Trump voters. Anybody else tired of this yet? Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4549842/Man-provokes-fury-ticket-women-WW-screening.html

Anti-Stealthing Law is Anti-Men By Mike J.

On May 16th, California assembly women Christina Garcia introduced a new rape law that would seek to punish the ill-defined and nearly unprovable act of “stealthing”. Stealthing, for those not in the know, is the act of intentionally removing or tampering with a condom during sexual intercourse. Stealthing, Christina Garcia argues, is just another form of rape. The problem with adding such a clearly flawed and biased addendum to the currently existing rape laws would be many. It would be very hard if not impossible to prove such a case as condoms can break due to improper usage or age. It creates the possibility for false allegations against men by women who have become pregnant by accident. It also says nothing on the topic of women who would tamper with contraceptives to become pregnant, despite a male sexual partners wishes. Assembly women Garcia is no stranger to pushing these ill-conceived amendments to current rape laws. In August of last year she helped pass an amendment that would make any form of an alleged non-consensual act be defined as rape. Sadly, this new law, like those before it, seems likely to pass given Governor Jerry Brown history with approving every new rape law amendment put through by congress.

Source: http://menslaws.com/index.php/2017/05/28/california-amend-rape-laws-target-men-stealthing/ https://a58.asmdc.org/press-releases/rape-definition-ca-include-stealthing http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB701

Scaring Sons Into Suicide By L Kemlo

An Illinois family is claiming a school discipline meeting scared their son into suicide. Corey Walgren, 16, jumped to his death in January, less than three hours after meeting with school officials and police at Naperville North High School.

The meeting was about an alleged cellphone recording of a consensual sexual encounter with a female classmate. Corey had no criminal history and had never been in serious trouble at school. Corey’s parents claim the school officials questioned him about “child pornography” and threatened to have him registered as a sex offender. According to the Chicago Tribune, Corey’s mother thinks the school wanted to scare him straight, “instead, they scared him to death.”

According to the Tribune it does not appear any pornographic images were found on the teen’s phone, but it did contain a file with audio of the sexual encounter. Apparently, the female classmate in the recording alleged that he may have played it for his friends. Records of the meeting show police did not intend to pursue charges, but wanted to handle the matter in a way that ensured Corey understood the seriousness of his actions and how it affected his classmate, who was described as “mortified” in the police report.

After the meeting, the school had contacted his mother but Corey left school grounds and walked to a nearby parking garage, where he jumped to his death. His parents plan to sue the school district and the police department.

Sources: http://nypost.com/2017/05/23/family-says-school-discipline-meeting-scared-son-into-committing-suicide/ http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-naperville-north-suicide-20170522-story.html

Check out the latest Honeybadgers episode.

[merlehornsby]

Reproductive Rights

Reproductive rights include such topics as abortion, birth control, sex education, the right to rear children, the freedom to plan a family and other matters related to reproduction. This section includes an explanation of what constitutes the category of reproductive rights, a brief legal history of reproductive rights, relevant case law, and more. See the corresponding sections on abortion, birth control and other reproductive rights topics for more detailed information.

What are Reproductive Rights?

Reproductive rights refer to the rights of an individual to make decisions regarding reproduction and reproductive health. This concept generally includes the right to plan a family, learn about reproduction in school, terminate a pregnancy, access and use contraceptives, and access reproductive health services. Reproductive rights advocates have faced opposition from those raising moral, ethical, and religious issues relating to reproduction. Reproductive rights remain an emotional and politically charged issue.

Abortion is generally the most hotly contested issue within reproductive rights. Defenders and opponents of abortion term themselves “pro-choice” and “pro-life” respectively. Pro-choice advocates argue that an abortion falls within an individual’s constitutional right to privacy. They feel that the choice to terminate an “unborn fetus” lies with the individual and their doctor. Pro-life advocates argue that a fetus is a living being at the moment of conception and argue that abortion should be criminalized for the protection of the “unborn child.”

Laws and History

Much of the legal debate over reproductive rights has centered on abortion. Abortion was a legal practice throughout the United States prior to the country’s independence and continuing until the passage of the Comstock Act in 1873. Although the act primarily targeted pornography, it also made it illegal to use the U.S. Postal Service to send contraceptives, abortifacients, and materials related to sexual education. Around this time states began to pass laws criminalizing abortion. This trend continued until the landmark 1973 Supreme Court ruling Roe v. Wade, which overturned state laws criminalizing abortion.

In more recent years federal lawmakers have restricted federal funding for abortions and some states have restricted access to abortions by requiring parental consent for minors, counseling, waiting periods, and other requirements designed to dissuade individuals from having an abortion. Certain kinds of abortions have been banned altogether, even where this endangers the life of the mother. Legislation has passed that establishes personhood for fetuses. On the other hand, during the same period, the Food and Drug Administration approved the abortion drug RU-486, which aborts pregnancies during the first seven weeks after conception.

Sex Education in Schools

Among the reproductive rights issues that has generated controversy is the question of whether and the extent to which it is appropriate to provide sex education in schools. Advocates of sex education claim that sex education results in lower rates of teen pregnancy and lower STD infection rates. Opponents of sex education in schools claim that the state has no place educating children about sex, preferring that parents teach children about sex in accord with their own values and at the time of their choosing. At present, debate focuses more on the content of sex education rather than whether or not it should be provided. Opponents frequently favor an abstinence-only approach to education, while advocates seek a broader discussion of reproduction.

Free Initial Consultation with a Reproductive Rights Lawyer

When you have questions about reproductive rights in Utah, call Ascent Law for your free consultation (801) 676-5506. We want to help you.

Ascent Law LLC 8833 S. Redwood Road, Suite C West Jordan, Utah 84088 United States Telephone: (801) 676-5506

Ascent Law LLC

4.9 stars – based on 67 reviews

Recent Posts

Business Franchise Law

Sexual Harassment Lawyers

Mental Health

Family Law Advice

Financial Steps in Divorce

Fraudulent Misrepresentation

Source: https://www.ascentlawfirm.com/reproductive-rights/

source https://businesslawyerwestjordanut.wordpress.com/2018/11/29/reproductive-rights/

https://businesslawyerwestjordanut.blogspot.com/2018/11/reproductive-rights.html

[juliadicken]

Reproductive Rights

Reproductive rights include such topics as abortion, birth control, sex education, the right to rear children, the freedom to plan a family and other matters related to reproduction. This section includes an explanation of what constitutes the category of reproductive rights, a brief legal history of reproductive rights, relevant case law, and more. See the corresponding sections on abortion, birth control and other reproductive rights topics for more detailed information.

What are Reproductive Rights?

Reproductive rights refer to the rights of an individual to make decisions regarding reproduction and reproductive health. This concept generally includes the right to plan a family, learn about reproduction in school, terminate a pregnancy, access and use contraceptives, and access reproductive health services. Reproductive rights advocates have faced opposition from those raising moral, ethical, and religious issues relating to reproduction. Reproductive rights remain an emotional and politically charged issue.

Abortion is generally the most hotly contested issue within reproductive rights. Defenders and opponents of abortion term themselves “pro-choice” and “pro-life” respectively. Pro-choice advocates argue that an abortion falls within an individual’s constitutional right to privacy. They feel that the choice to terminate an “unborn fetus” lies with the individual and their doctor. Pro-life advocates argue that a fetus is a living being at the moment of conception and argue that abortion should be criminalized for the protection of the “unborn child.”

Laws and History

Much of the legal debate over reproductive rights has centered on abortion. Abortion was a legal practice throughout the United States prior to the country’s independence and continuing until the passage of the Comstock Act in 1873. Although the act primarily targeted pornography, it also made it illegal to use the U.S. Postal Service to send contraceptives, abortifacients, and materials related to sexual education. Around this time states began to pass laws criminalizing abortion. This trend continued until the landmark 1973 Supreme Court ruling Roe v. Wade, which overturned state laws criminalizing abortion.

In more recent years federal lawmakers have restricted federal funding for abortions and some states have restricted access to abortions by requiring parental consent for minors, counseling, waiting periods, and other requirements designed to dissuade individuals from having an abortion. Certain kinds of abortions have been banned altogether, even where this endangers the life of the mother. Legislation has passed that establishes personhood for fetuses. On the other hand, during the same period, the Food and Drug Administration approved the abortion drug RU-486, which aborts pregnancies during the first seven weeks after conception.

Sex Education in Schools

Among the reproductive rights issues that has generated controversy is the question of whether and the extent to which it is appropriate to provide sex education in schools. Advocates of sex education claim that sex education results in lower rates of teen pregnancy and lower STD infection rates. Opponents of sex education in schools claim that the state has no place educating children about sex, preferring that parents teach children about sex in accord with their own values and at the time of their choosing. At present, debate focuses more on the content of sex education rather than whether or not it should be provided. Opponents frequently favor an abstinence-only approach to education, while advocates seek a broader discussion of reproduction.

Free Initial Consultation with a Reproductive Rights Lawyer

When you have questions about reproductive rights in Utah, call Ascent Law for your free consultation (801) 676-5506. We want to help you.

Ascent Law LLC 8833 S. Redwood Road, Suite C West Jordan, Utah 84088 United States Telephone: (801) 676-5506

Ascent Law LLC

4.9 stars – based on 67 reviews

Recent Posts

Business Franchise Law

Sexual Harassment Lawyers

Mental Health

Family Law Advice

Financial Steps in Divorce

Fraudulent Misrepresentation

From https://www.ascentlawfirm.com/reproductive-rights/

[cup-of-conure]

Reproductive Rights

Reproductive rights include such topics as abortion, birth control, sex education, the right to rear children, the freedom to plan a family and other matters related to reproduction. This section includes an explanation of what constitutes the category of reproductive rights, a brief legal history of reproductive rights, relevant case law, and more. See the corresponding sections on abortion, birth control and other reproductive rights topics for more detailed information.

What are Reproductive Rights?

Reproductive rights refer to the rights of an individual to make decisions regarding reproduction and reproductive health. This concept generally includes the right to plan a family, learn about reproduction in school, terminate a pregnancy, access and use contraceptives, and access reproductive health services. Reproductive rights advocates have faced opposition from those raising moral, ethical, and religious issues relating to reproduction. Reproductive rights remain an emotional and politically charged issue.

Abortion is generally the most hotly contested issue within reproductive rights. Defenders and opponents of abortion term themselves “pro-choice” and “pro-life” respectively. Pro-choice advocates argue that an abortion falls within an individual’s constitutional right to privacy. They feel that the choice to terminate an “unborn fetus” lies with the individual and their doctor. Pro-life advocates argue that a fetus is a living being at the moment of conception and argue that abortion should be criminalized for the protection of the “unborn child.”

Laws and History

Much of the legal debate over reproductive rights has centered on abortion. Abortion was a legal practice throughout the United States prior to the country’s independence and continuing until the passage of the Comstock Act in 1873. Although the act primarily targeted pornography, it also made it illegal to use the U.S. Postal Service to send contraceptives, abortifacients, and materials related to sexual education. Around this time states began to pass laws criminalizing abortion. This trend continued until the landmark 1973 Supreme Court ruling Roe v. Wade, which overturned state laws criminalizing abortion.

In more recent years federal lawmakers have restricted federal funding for abortions and some states have restricted access to abortions by requiring parental consent for minors, counseling, waiting periods, and other requirements designed to dissuade individuals from having an abortion. Certain kinds of abortions have been banned altogether, even where this endangers the life of the mother. Legislation has passed that establishes personhood for fetuses. On the other hand, during the same period, the Food and Drug Administration approved the abortion drug RU-486, which aborts pregnancies during the first seven weeks after conception.

Sex Education in Schools

Among the reproductive rights issues that has generated controversy is the question of whether and the extent to which it is appropriate to provide sex education in schools. Advocates of sex education claim that sex education results in lower rates of teen pregnancy and lower STD infection rates. Opponents of sex education in schools claim that the state has no place educating children about sex, preferring that parents teach children about sex in accord with their own values and at the time of their choosing. At present, debate focuses more on the content of sex education rather than whether or not it should be provided. Opponents frequently favor an abstinence-only approach to education, while advocates seek a broader discussion of reproduction.

Free Initial Consultation with a Reproductive Rights Lawyer

When you have questions about reproductive rights in Utah, call Ascent Law for your free consultation (801) 676-5506. We want to help you.

Ascent Law LLC 8833 S. Redwood Road, Suite C West Jordan, Utah 84088 United States Telephone: (801) 676-5506

Ascent Law LLC

4.9 stars – based on 67 reviews

Recent Posts

Business Franchise Law

Sexual Harassment Lawyers

Mental Health

Family Law Advice

Financial Steps in Divorce

Fraudulent Misrepresentation

From https://www.ascentlawfirm.com/reproductive-rights/

source https://familylawattorneyut.wordpress.com/2018/11/29/reproductive-rights/

from https://familylawattorneyut.blogspot.com/2018/11/reproductive-rights.html

[lewispascual]

Reproductive Rights

Reproductive rights include such topics as abortion, birth control, sex education, the right to rear children, the freedom to plan a family and other matters related to reproduction. This section includes an explanation of what constitutes the category of reproductive rights, a brief legal history of reproductive rights, relevant case law, and more. See the corresponding sections on abortion, birth control and other reproductive rights topics for more detailed information.

What are Reproductive Rights?

Reproductive rights refer to the rights of an individual to make decisions regarding reproduction and reproductive health. This concept generally includes the right to plan a family, learn about reproduction in school, terminate a pregnancy, access and use contraceptives, and access reproductive health services. Reproductive rights advocates have faced opposition from those raising moral, ethical, and religious issues relating to reproduction. Reproductive rights remain an emotional and politically charged issue.

Abortion is generally the most hotly contested issue within reproductive rights. Defenders and opponents of abortion term themselves “pro-choice” and “pro-life” respectively. Pro-choice advocates argue that an abortion falls within an individual’s constitutional right to privacy. They feel that the choice to terminate an “unborn fetus” lies with the individual and their doctor. Pro-life advocates argue that a fetus is a living being at the moment of conception and argue that abortion should be criminalized for the protection of the “unborn child.”

Laws and History

Much of the legal debate over reproductive rights has centered on abortion. Abortion was a legal practice throughout the United States prior to the country’s independence and continuing until the passage of the Comstock Act in 1873. Although the act primarily targeted pornography, it also made it illegal to use the U.S. Postal Service to send contraceptives, abortifacients, and materials related to sexual education. Around this time states began to pass laws criminalizing abortion. This trend continued until the landmark 1973 Supreme Court ruling Roe v. Wade, which overturned state laws criminalizing abortion.

In more recent years federal lawmakers have restricted federal funding for abortions and some states have restricted access to abortions by requiring parental consent for minors, counseling, waiting periods, and other requirements designed to dissuade individuals from having an abortion. Certain kinds of abortions have been banned altogether, even where this endangers the life of the mother. Legislation has passed that establishes personhood for fetuses. On the other hand, during the same period, the Food and Drug Administration approved the abortion drug RU-486, which aborts pregnancies during the first seven weeks after conception.

Sex Education in Schools

Among the reproductive rights issues that has generated controversy is the question of whether and the extent to which it is appropriate to provide sex education in schools. Advocates of sex education claim that sex education results in lower rates of teen pregnancy and lower STD infection rates. Opponents of sex education in schools claim that the state has no place educating children about sex, preferring that parents teach children about sex in accord with their own values and at the time of their choosing. At present, debate focuses more on the content of sex education rather than whether or not it should be provided. Opponents frequently favor an abstinence-only approach to education, while advocates seek a broader discussion of reproduction.

Free Initial Consultation with a Reproductive Rights Lawyer

When you have questions about reproductive rights in Utah, call Ascent Law for your free consultation (801) 676-5506. We want to help you.

Ascent Law LLC8833 S. Redwood Road, Suite CWest Jordan, Utah 84088 United StatesTelephone: (801) 676-5506

Ascent Law LLC

4.9 stars – based on 67 reviews

Recent Posts

Business Franchise Law

Sexual Harassment Lawyers

Mental Health

Family Law Advice

Financial Steps in Divorce

Fraudulent Misrepresentation

Source: https://www.ascentlawfirm.com/reproductive-rights/