It’s about equality

From “America Is Not Ready for the End of Roe v. Wade” by the New York Times editorial board on May 6:

The principle is clear: Women and men should have
equal control over their own bodies

Even more fundamental than our religious or scientific differences about when human life begins is that simple statement: Women and men should have equal control over their own bodies. To deny women the right to abortion is to deny them equality with men. Period.

Gender equality in the United States either is, or it isn’t.

Banner image: Sunset on the Supreme Court (Photo: Michael Reynolds/EPA)

26 thoughts on “It’s about equality

  1. A crew comfortable with devouring Roe, whole hog, will certainly snack on any and all unenumerated rights that they might find on the People’s menu.

    They’re gonna snack early and often on that ninth amendment, unless it feeds communion and such.

    1. I had to look up the Ninth Amendment: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Probably a safe bet it will be construed … and misconstrued … and misapplied … and god knows what else. I don’t suppose it might be overlooked by the ne’er do wells …

  2. johnthecook…the wholesale killing of babies in the womb was barbaric from the beginning. SIXTY MILLION and counting since 1973. We are worse than any animal on Planet Earth.

        1. Life, personhood, begins with viability. But that aside, what’s inside a woman’s body is nobody else’s business. I doubt you’d tolerate anyone else telling you what you could or couldn’t do with your body. Strangers can’t dictate to you … or to her. That’s equality. Neither of you is beholden to the wishes of a bunch of strangers. Equal treatment. Equal autonomy.

          1. johnthecook…who said “Life, personhood, begins with viability”? Tell that to a person who is all but brain dead in a hospital on “Life Support” just waiting for someone to “pull the plug” to end it all. I personally have NEVER had to make that decision. And yes, the Government of the people, by the people and for the people has the authority to tell us what drugs we can and cannot put in our bodies. There is no such thing as across the board equality. Men were not created to do what women do, and woman was not created to do what men do. Even the Supreme Court had to OVERTURN their previous ruling SEPERATE BUT EQUAL in the case of “BROWN vs THE BOARD OF EDUCATION”. My point here is equality has never been the issue. It’s a side bar distraction hiding the truth of the matter.

        2. This is a delicate, emotional, and contentious issue John, and I appreciate your position, and your willingness to engage.

          If a government, of, by, and for the people becomes so absolutist in fashioning one size fits all dictates John, then we all become the emperor with no clothes.

          This is a nakedly nuanced issue. We need to be truly careful how we collectively weave the fabric of our future.

    1. I don’t know why it took so long for me to realize that arguing about when life begins is missing the point entirely. NYT stated it so simply. The issue is bodily autonomy, equal bodily autonomy. Men have always had bodily autonomy. Women should have it too. All adults should have it. That’s equality.

      “The principle is clear: Women and men should have equal control over their own bodies.”

      Equal autonomy

    2. I would add that the rights granted in HIPAA should apply to women’s reproductive rights. It’s nobody’s business but patient/doctor.

      HIPAA: “The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) is a federal law that required the creation of national standards to protect sensitive patient health information from being disclosed without the patient’s consent or knowledge.”

  3. Equality is the last thing any Republican (read Right-winger) wants here or anywhere in the world. And yet people still elect the likes of a Marcos…AGAIN! The Republican war on education everywhere is paying BIG dividends. continue…

  4. I’ll re-post this…

    Considering the accuracy of today’s DNA technology, I know that there is a more equitable answer to the “Mandatory Birth” debate. To wit:

    Unwilling mothers who have been forced by law to carry a child to term may provide governing officials with the identity of the father, and upon DNA verification of that fact, those officials WILL legally impose on that father the obligation to fund that child’s upbringing and general welfare through his child’s education and journey to adulthood. Failure to abide by and meet these obligations will result in an extension of those obligations for a period of three years for each violation.

    Tango time.

    1. Tango time, indeed!! I’ve long thought that those forcing a woman to bear a child she doesn’t want should consequently have to help her raise that child — food, shelter, education, etc. Either that or have to legally adopt the child.

... and that's my two cents