Roe v. Wade is history

Post Reply New Topic

I'm not sure really. I haven't heard of any other women's rights involving body or surgery, so I am not sure. I was just curious.

- sexual assault
- sex trafficking
- child abuse
- incest
- exploitation
- trans rights
- sex education
- LGBTQ rights
- adoption and surrogacy
- access to birth control
- Honour Killings
- assisted reproduction
- mandatory vaccinations
- shaming and bullying
- stalking
- objectification
- equal pay for equal work
- equal rights legislation (The Persons Law)
- single parenting
- child support enforcement
- abusive partners
- domestic violence
- medical and OBGYN care
- menstrual issues / products
- privacy rights
- media portrayals
- eating disorders
- maternity leave
- childcare
- post-partum depression
- women's mental health
- women with autism
- women's suicide

I hope this rings a few bells.

All of those topics involve a woman's body autonomy.

Equal pay relates to flesh because the woman's body goes to work every day.
They wake up, get out of bed, and drag themselves to jobs performing the same tasks as men.
Exhaustion, stress, and work-related injuries are just as injurious to women as men.
Probably more so, if the woman is smaller with less muscle mass and less power in the company.

Every instance of existence affects a person's "flesh", not just sexual things.
That includes their mental health and the expectations of how to be a woman.

I didn't say the government would be interested in Honour Killings.
I'm saying that if girls and women don't have access to sexual privacy, there will be more.

Some state governments are already suggesting girls / women shouldn't have sex education.
TwilightPrincess has given many examples of how girls / women are treated in some communities.
If they can't go to SCOTUS to have their human rights defended, they are at risk.

Eating disorders: It's like anything else. If the government decides not to educate or provide access to healthcare, it puts girls and women at risk. This is especially true when the government simultaneously promotes women as thin and healthy in all of their media campaigns.

Oh okay, I see.

But as far as the government wanting to go after birth control next, it just seems like a huge reach to me, because all the court did was interpret that the 14th amendment did not cover abortions. It just seems that like a reach how they would go from one to the other like that.

That's like saying that if gun control takes off, they will go after knives and baseball bats next, isn't it?

Who is openly discussing it though, the supreme court?

They're already going after the morning-after pill which is the same as double-strength birth control pills.
Religious and right-wing groups are teaching abstinence as the only form of birth control.
Unfortunately if the girl gets pregnant, she's stuck with the consequence.
Boys aren't. They might not even be identified.

Oh I see. If the morning after pill falls under abortion and the supreme court is going after that, can they go after birth control pills or condoms though, if it does not count as abortion, if used before pregancy? For example abortion falls under the 14th amendment and that is how they went after that. But are their any amendments that condoms or birth control pills fall under, that they could use to go after them though?

I suppose lawmakers can do whatever they choose.
I hope they wouldn't do that.
Anyone on the pill could take the whole package to stop implantation / cause a loss.
It's no different than handing girls / women a month worth of morning-after pills.

Condoms?
Religious groups already say it's a sin to masturbate even with a partner.
Oral sex and ejaculating outside the wife's body are a sin.

Who knows how crazy they'll get with this type of thinking.
Why would condoms be needed if all sexual activity was supposed to make babies?