Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
From Friday’s LifeNews, I learn that Democrats in the House of Representatives are taking steps to resurrect the Equal Rights Amendment, a move pushed by abortion activists on the grounds that the ERA would provide a sturdier constitutional peg upon which to hang the right to abortion. “According to an analysis from National Right to Life Committee, “Once a court adopts the understanding that a law limiting abortion is by definition a form of discrimination based on sex, and therefore impermissible under an ERA, the same doctrine would invalidate virtually any limitation on abortion,” including “restrictions on tax-funded abortions” and “any federal or state restrictions even on partial-birth abortions or third-trimester abortions.”
Here’s the thing though…according to no less an authority than Planned Parenthood, “Some men have a uterus.” PP of Indiana and Kentucky sent out a message to that effect last year repeating, for reasons best known to themselves, this assertion 11 times in a single tweet.
The tweet received plenty of “likes” and “retweets” and whatnot, and of course a bit of pushback from the
science bigotry-based community along the lines of “No, they don’t. No, they don’t. No, they don’t.” etc.
Planned Parenthood, always on the cutting edge when it comes to the facts of life, is proactive when it comes to offering respectful abortion care to men who get knocked up before they’re ready to be fathers. The number one abortion provider in the country is deliberately removing or reducing obstacles to care. (Side benefit for the aesthetics of protest — they’re going to be deploying a little less of that violent pink color, since it makes pregnant men feel, you know, misgendered. I’m looking forward to the soothing beige pussy hats, myself.)
“Obstacles like when you call the receptionist at the clinic for a follow-up appointment, and they won’t make one for you because your voice doesn’t sound like a ‘Jessica.’ Or when doctors question your gender during an examination. Or when your insurance provider covers abortion services for women, but not for men. [My italics.] Or when your insurer doesn’t cover abortion at all. Rollie’s didn’t, and he had to pay $1,200 out-of-pocket. ‘It decimated my savings,’ he says. Worse yet, his job let him go after he told them he couldn’t come in because he was having an abortion. His boss — who was a friend of his — told him that working through the pain was ‘just what you did,’ and that if he didn’t show up, he’d be fired.”
“Man up,” in other words.
Rollie “was never harassed for his gender during the abortion process,” which may have had something to do with the fact that “Rollie, like many other trans men, chose to go through the abortion process “undercover,” in what he calls his “female form.”
And so, “though he was mistreated in a variety of other ways by his gynecologist and a nurse who worked in his office — the former took him off his antipsychotic medication for no reason and the latter cornered him and begged him to keep the baby — his masculinity played less of a part in his overall experience than he expected.” (It would be interesting to know whether accessing vasectomies and prostate-care is similarly problematic for women?)
Meanwhile, The National Network of Abortion Funds has adjusted their language around the reality of pregnant men, referring instead to “people who have abortions”
Here’s the thing, though. If some women have penises and testicles…if Some men have a uterus…some men have a uterus…some men have a uterus....(etc.) and if these men can inadvertently (and yet, somehow, predictably?) become pregnant, then pregnancy is not a condition exclusive to women. Restricting or outlawing abortion could not constitute discrimination based on sex, and the ERA would make no difference whatever in determining the constitutionality of abortion or the lack thereof.