Alot of people with a lot of power don’t see why women should have jurisdiction over their own bodies. That’s the anti-abortion argument in a nutshell, in that they claim a foetus, or even an embryo, or in some cases even a fertilised egg too small for the human eye to see, has rights that supersede those of the person inside whose body that egg, embryo or foetus might be.
What was clear from the rightwing pundits and conservative supreme court justices who have piped up over the last month as arguments were being heard in the most significant abortion rights case since Roe v Wade, is that in a country whose constitution is supposed to grant us all a lot of rights, they are happy to strip away a right so fundamental it’s unimaginable in other circumstances – or that it would be stripped from other people, namely men. In the case, Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the state of Mississippi is asking the court to rule on whether it can outlaw abortions after 15 weeks’ gestation. They are asking, in other words, for the right to punish women for being women.
The goal of the anti-abortionists seems to be to enhance men’s privileges by undermining women’s rights, by making us separate and unequal. (People who do not identify as female also get pregnant and bear children, but the animosity is directed at women and girls, so I’m going to talk about women and girls here.) Since acknowledging this would undermine the anti-abortion case, the emphasis is instead shifted to someone else whose rights are claimed to trump those of pregnant people, the unborn. The unborn are a convenient constituency to advocate for, since they have no voice or vote and anyone can claim to speak for them. » | Rebecca Solnit | Friday, December 10, 2021
