(no subject)

I think I need more life in my work/life balance.
I'm not sure what that would mean, exactly, but watching others create things makes me ache in a certain way.
And yet, I feel as though I have nothing creative to add, nothing meaningful to say, and no way to communicate it even if I did.
Maybe I have an impossible creation-envy.

the Roberts nomination

If nothing else, this proves to me that I spend way too much time online. I know my perspective is not objective, and not all consuming, but...

I've seen a fair amount of passionate but reasoned concern about his record (legal, judicial, personal), which has been documented whenever questions were raised.

I've seen way, way, way too much of, "Well, he's not so bad/he said (as a federal judge) that he supports precedent/he won't overturn anything", with no documentation whatsoever. I try, genuinely try, not to apply stereotypes, not to overgeneralize, but goddamn if every single person I've encountered who takes the ostrich approach above doesn't have a dick* (assuming they can be trusted in reporting, which I cannot guarantee).

Guess what? Roe isn't just a women's issue. Fuck, even if Roe wasn't where the right to privacy entered the constitutional history, even if it were just about abortion, it's an apalling example of privilege and/or discrimination to tell an entire class of people that they can't control their own bodies, that the state knows better than they do.

I'm fucking tired of the "strict constitutionalist" line, too. Why is it that it only ever comes up in relation to Roe? Why aren't these regressive social conservatives going hell-bent for leather to overrule Santa Clara, which would remove from corporations the rights of individuals? That sure as hell isn't in the constitution. And while we're at it, if one is really strict, when the constitution was written, slavery was still legal; do people want to go back to that?

It's about privacy. It's not about "baby killing" (why is abortion always "baby killing", but anti-choice is never "state control of reproduction"?). It's not about women's rights. It's not about selfish people. It's about the ability to be private. I can't really believe that these knee jerk conservatives really want their rights to privacy removed, but of course, that's why they don't frame it that way. Instead, it's about taking away hte rights of women, first, then the rights of unmarried people (Griswold); they've already made serious headway in taking away the rights of the poor and the nonwhite. Now, what makes Roe "no big deal" is that it doesn't speak to "men" (which is stupid; it should speak to anyone who is, knows, loves, or cares about people with fertile ovaries as equal human beings), it summons forth the secret shame of the millions of people who've had abortions but can't speak of it, and it plays into protecting the privilege of the status quo. For me, it's pretty damned simple; if you don't support abortion rights, then to me you're saying that you don't think people with fertile ovaries are full human beings, worthy of full equal rights.

But just wait; the time will come when they'll take your rights, too. And then, I'll be able to say I told you so, even if it is from prison or beyond the grave.


*That's not to say that everyone who does, or purports, to have a dick has this response, not at all. Heck, I've got one, and I'm still pissed off. It's a human rights issue, not a "special rights" issue.