I really have to hand it to you, Governor Greg Abbott. You are a visionary, an example of the type of trailblazing, forward thinking leadership we all need. When challenged on the lack of exceptions for rape in your restrictive new abortion law, you stunned the world with your ingenuity: You would simply eliminate rape in Texas. Your plan is so simple, yet revolutionary. Why has no one thought of this before?
My God, the brilliance.
Imagine the damage and trauma that could have been avoided if only some other hero had suggested this ingenious plan. Thank you, governor, for doing what no one else has been able to do in the millions of years since humanity began hurting each other. I can’t wait to learn how you will accomplish this feat. I’m at a loss to even venture a guess, but no doubt you’ve got something extraordinary up your sleeve.
I assume that this means the 6000 or so sexual assault evidence collection kits sitting on shelves in evidence rooms around Texas will finally be analyzed so that you can make good on your promise “to eliminate all rapists from the streets of Texas.” And until such time as your novel approach to stopping a crime that occurs roughly 40 times per day in your state comes to fruition, which no doubt will happen super quickly, can I assume that you will direct law enforcement to take women at their word when they report that they have been sexually assaulted?
You know, Governor, some might say your words were clearly patronizing bullshit of the highest order, completely and utterly divorced from reality, that no thinking person could take seriously. But not me; I have faith that you meant it, you tireless champion of women’s health and wellbeing. I just cannot wait until Texas becomes a rape (and abortion!)-free Utopia!
I admit I do wonder: if all this time you’ve had this remarkable ability to stop all rape in your state, why did you wait until now? There must be a good reason. Otherwise, one might think your words were a weak and transparent attempt to deflect criticism of one of the more serious flaws of your state’s very problematic new law.
I am confident that you have a plan and will make good on your word. Otherwise, that would mean that some women will be forced to endure the physical and emotional trauma of hosting within her very body the DNA of a man who raped her, bonded with him against her will forever through the creation of this child. Imagine her having to tear her body apart to birth an eternal reminder of the worst day of her life. Imagine if she had to look in the mirror every day and see the permanent remnants of pregnancy she didn’t want — stretchmarks, perhaps a scar — and be reminded of what happened to her. Or if she had to see, every day, the eyes or the smile of her attacker reflected in her own flesh and blood, for whom she must now sacrifice the life she had planned for herself.
Thank God Governor Greg Abbott is going to stop rape, because that would just be unbelievably cruel.
And here I though Uncle Joe was the gaffe machine. Seems Abbot wants the title.
Em, I get your point, but that second-last paragraph is just too far. If it’s a balance between an innocent having to carry a child to term or an innocent dying, I’m going to go for the former every time.
Personally, I think Abbott’s response fits the serial-rapist “stranger danger” framework, but not the “someone you know”. We could maybe reduce the incidence of the crime by increasing the penalty. Historically, it has been a capital crime.
I can’t wrap my head around that argument when I hear it.
It sounds like a complete denial or dismissal of the physical and emotional effects of doing so, like it’s just no big deal and no harm to the woman.
Something can be worse than everyday life and less bad than murder.
Like forcing a woman to be retraumatized over her rape every time she looks at her child? Because that’s what you are talking about.
Yeah, forced pregnancy is traumatic enough by itself. Activists here have already seen suicides and attempted suicides as a result of the law, and I don’t think these were rape-caused pregnancies. This will cost people’s lives, and the pro-forced pregnancy people simply don’t care.
Suicides? Already?
Man, this is like hearing about cannibalism in the Superdome.
I’m not saying that it’s *NEVER* going to be appropriate to resort to that.
I’m just saying it’s a hair early.
This is the argument that I hate.
There’s a simple method around it — ADOPTION.
Now, say along with me, for Nine Months having to deal with Morning Sickness, loss of career prospects, having a growing parasite within your body.
… but ten months, folks. It’s not forever. (and, yes, in this case, we are doing irreperable harm to the innocent babe by not breastfeeding them. Wet Nurses, folks — and Abbot should be championing them.).
We can get into poisoning oneself through carrying male babies to term, if you like. That’s a thing that lasts forever.
Sorry, but I’m not up for nine months of harm forcing a woman to carry to term, even IF you can find someone to adopt her baby. The statistics on that aren’t terribly good, especially for babies born to women of color.
Far better long term to let women decide if they want to become or stay pregnant.
Citation?
https://www.statista.com/statistics/633483/racial-distribution-of-adopted-children-us/
https://www.pri.org/stories/2019-02-21/us-adoption-system-discriminates-against-darker-skinned-children
Neither of these address Katie’s scenario. I’d want to see the number of unadopted infants.
Calling adoption a simple solution is ignoring that it’s so hard emotionally that most women can’t do it. If that’s where their head is at then they’d rather abort, that’s much easier on their body, mind, and pocketbook.
It was Katie who used the word “simple”, not me. But in her defense, something can be simple without being easy. Is it easier to have an abortion than to have a baby? Emotionally, maybe, short-term. But is the easy thing always the right thing?
No. I’m surprised someone would ask that. My premise is that no emotional damage can balance the equation for cutting a life short.
Are you in favor of other State forced solutions to medical issues?
Should the state fix the pandemic by forcing vaccination? Fix the lack of blood by taking it from the unwilling? Fix the lack of some organs by taking them?
These solutions would save innocents. They all have the problem of forcing one innocent to save another.
Note pregnancy is by far more damaging than say blood donation much less vaccination.
Well, I guess that depends on whether you think forcing women to carry and have babies they don’t want is “right.”
Are you in favor of forced organ donation? Forced blood donation? Forced vaccination?
And “forced” means “the state will make you do this even if we need to strap you down, we have more authority over your body than you do”.
Given how poorly police and the justice system do with sexual assault right now, both in terms of how often they arrest, how often they prosecute, and how often they get bad verdicts (in both directions), I can’t imagine increasing the penalties, much less making it a capital crime, is the answer. The answer is much more difficult and complex, and sociocultural, than throwing years or lethal drug cocktails at it.
wow – thats so misogynistic I don’t even know where to start.
Agreed. There’s only so much that the legal system can do. I was just pointing out its only possible recourse.
Comments like Abbot’s, and the reaction to them, always make me think of that observation about how fascists use illogic and absurdity to their advantage.
He wasn’t making a carefully constructed proposal for a policy. He wasn’t critiquing any existing condition. It was a jumble of gibberish and word salad meant to cynically defend the indefensible.
Abbot and his supporters can indulge in absurdity and demand that we respond with careful reasoning and logic, because their underlying premise is that whenever they hold power, there is really only one logic at play, which is that those with power are protected, while those without are not.
I believe suicide rates were down in ’20, nationwide, but I could be misremembering.
Obviously what Abbott said is a despicable lie that wouldn’t fool a 6-year-old, and what it really means is “I don’t care.”. But why would he say it? What audience is he playing to?