Oklahoma Nesties
Dear Community,
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Personhood laws
Anyone else wigging out about this garbage? I just heard about this today...apparently birth control pills, implants, shots, etc. are considered illegal under this. Please correct me if this is wrong...it seems so incredibly ridiculous that I can't imagine this would get anywhere.
Re: Personhood laws
It establishes "personhood" as conception when the egg and sperm meet. Soooo, yes, certain forms of BC that stop implantation of a fertilized embryo would fall under it. As would various fertility treatments like IVF where embryos are created but not all used.
It already passed the senate right? With only a couple nays. (8?) if it passes the house, Fallin will almost certainly sign it. I'll be beyond pissed if this ever affects my ability to get birth control, requires an unprovable father's signature for a medical procedure, forces me to accept medical risk based on the rights of a potential embryo, etc.
So yeah, please contact your representative.
I emailed both my senator and representative last week when there was some anti-choice protesters at the capital. This is what I said:
Luzern, Switzerland
Bios
Adventures of A. Cook
I don't understand how two "persons" can share one body, from a legal standpoint. Protecting the rights of one will infringe on the rights of the other. For example, if the baby has a right to develop as healthily as possible, will the mother be required to attend doctor appointments and adhere to a strict diet to ensure that happens? Will she be fined, placed under house arrest, or otherwise penalized to ensure that happens?
Would birth control pills really be considered illegal under this law, at least the types that prevent the fertilization of an embryo rather than preventing the implantation of a fertilized embryo? So it would be illegal to NOT leave create another person?
I wish the government would put as much effort into protecting life after birth as they do protecting it in the womb.
I believe the language of the bill specifically addresses the fact that failure to meet a specific dietary standard could not be cause for action against a woman. Also, from what I understand this should only restrict any type of birth control that prevents implantation. However, that applies to most birth controls since most bcp thin the lining of the uterus to prevent implantation. (this is also the same thing that makes them effective at treating endometriosis, reducing cramps, etc).
However, it DOES give rights to the father (to be determined how from a legal standpoint?) to the unborn fetus. I'm quite confused how that will work out.
I haven't heard about this law yet, however I will throw this out there based on what y'all are saying in this post.
I believe life begins at conception and this is why I don't take hormonal birth control pills. I used to take them, until I found out they allow the sperm to fertilize the egg and then keep it from implanting into the uterine wall.
This is something I haven't understood about those that are pro-choice... at what point is it wrong to kill a baby? That's a real question. It's ok in the 1st trimester, but not the 3rd? Once it starts looking like a baby it's actually a baby?
I just typed a whole response and lost it, damnit.
Regarding hormonal birth control: they don't just prevent implantation, they also prevent ovulation, which means sperm never meets egg in almost all cases. Thinning the lining of the uterus to discourage implantation is a secondary function.
Regarding timing of abortions: To me it has nothing to do with whether or not the fetus looks like a baby. It is a question of whether or not the life is viable outside of the mother's womb. There is a point when a zygote is just a mass of dividing cells and there is a point when a fetus can hear, see, breathe, smell, move, etc. When that happens is not a black and white line, but there is a big difference between those two situations to me. Women have 'chemical pregnancies' where a fertilized egg fails to implant (with no birth control) and never know it all the time.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think abortion is GOOD. I just think that it is sometimes necessary and sometimes even the humane choice. I don't think making abortion illegal prevents abortions, I just think it prevents safe abortions and fully informed medical decision making. I am downright scared of the potential outcome if my doctor is obligated by law to protect a fetus with equal (or more) vigor as he/she applies to saving my life.
People act as if carrying a pregnancy to term is just an inconvenience to a mother. It's not. There is a large amount of risk associated with any pregnancy. That risk is often unrealized and the outcome is a healthy mother and child, but the risk is there.
Furthermore, making laws that restrict contraceptives in any way don't reduce the number of abortions or protect sacred life. That only creates more unplanned pregnancies and more potential abortion candidates (or you know, abused/neglected children that end up cared for by the state).
I
you just a little more today, Wendy. Everything you said is everything I've ever thought about this subject.
I am exhausted with male politicians trying to legislate a woman's body.
You can sign this petition: http://www.change.org/petitions/persons-against-personhood-in-oklahoma?utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=share_petition&utm_term=own_wall
This is pretty much exactly what I think, especially the bolded statements.
I don't consider myself "pro-abortion." I would love for women not to feel the need to have abortions, but the reality is that they're going to happen whether it's legal or not. I much prefer for abortions to be remain legal, so they can be regulated as to when in the pregnancy they can occur and be performed in a medically safe manner that reduces the risk to the mother's health and life.
Thanks, everybody. Unfortunately it seems like this is as scary as I thought. So apparently it's cool to protect the unborn fetuses by taking away every right the woman has, because who cares about her, she's just good for making babies. I haven't been this mad over something in a long time. I signed that petition and intend to send out emails as well.
Blinking, I understand what you're saying, for sure, and you are lucky that you have the right to choose that. My beef is the attempt to take away our choices and force us into someone else's beliefs. Unacceptable.
I agree with everything Wendy said, but especially the part about decreasing access to contraception only causing MORE abortions to happen.
I also agree with the part that Sunny said about the problem with two "persons" sharing the same body. How do you decide where one person's rights end and the next begin, especially it situations where they are in direct conflict with each other, such as when the presence of the embryo/fetus threatens the life of the mother?
I was coming here to post the link to the petition, but I see Fuzzy has beat me to it.
I signed it, and obviously I encourage everyone to do the same, but I was incredible disheartened to read this in a post last night on FB from the Oklahoma Coalition for Reproductive Justice:
"The best, really the only, chance to defeat the Personhood Bill was in the Senate. No amount of lobbying will turn the House around."
I am feeling a bit guilty that I didn't do anything to make my voice heard when this was up for vote in the Senate. Honestly, I heard vague rumblings of it, but never thought the Senate would actually pass it.
Really, I think our only hope was ever for this to be overturned when challenged. I unfortunately don't believe there was a way to stop it from passing here.
I am also outraged there isn't more outrage over this.
I had a conversation about this earlier with some of my coworkers...does the bill specifically state that bc will be illegal? Or are we making the assumption that because conception starts at life that bc/IVF will become illegal?
Regardless, this is my goddamned body. I am so sick of people trying to tell me what to freaking do with it. I am by no means a supporter of abortion but Jesus Christ, people need to mind their own business and let people do what they want with THEIR BODY. Next thing I know, because my mother gave birth to me, all of a sudden the government is going to give her a say in how I life my life and I am going to need a release from her just to have a beer.
The bill says, "The laws of this state shall be interpreted and construed to acknowledge on behalf of the unborn child at every stage of development all rights, privileges, and immunities available to other persons, citizens and residents of this state."
There is nothing in the language that specifically says that birth control or IVF will be deemed illegal, but it definitely follows from the language. If an embryo has all of the same rights as a breathing person, it would be infringing on those rights, and thus illegal, to prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg or to create an embryo through IVF and then destroy it. It could even be a crime if embryos were accidentally destroyed during storage or handling.
That's the major problem with this bill. Under this wording, all sorts of things could be criminal if they are determined to take "rights" away from a fertilized egg.
Even my traditionally Catholic, radically pro-life aunt does not support it. I am horrified that anyone does.
SB 1433 just defines life as beginning at conception and gives the zygote/embryo/fetus full rights as a person. HJR 1067 clarifies that birth control which will "kill a baby" and fertility treatments which "kill a baby" will he illegal (this word choice makes me livid in and of itself)
No other words other than these.
Thanks for answering my question
I may not agree with you, but I see where you're coming from.