Happy Griswold v. Connecticut day!

Forty-three years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that the state - to paraphrase slightly - has no damn business telling you whether you can or can't use contraceptives.  

Even today, there are some who would take that from others solely to impose their own morality on consenting individuals.  Their platform is built on antiquated religious beliefs, a lack of understanding of our Constitutional rights, and an absolutely appalling ignorance of science and biology.  

*sigh*

So someplace deep in America's Heartland(tm), there's a big to-do brewing over a not-yet-opened Planned Parenthood clinic. As best I can gather, there was a lot of land zoned for medical use, thus PP didn't need to get the city council's approval. Now the legality of their building permit is being called into question, and the clinic remains closed.

Now, if it's truly a valid issue of someone screwing with the paperwork, that's all well and good. I still think the clinic should be allowed to open. I kind of doubt that, say, a plastic surgery clinic (read: something catering exclusively to rich folk) would have such a problem.

But there are some questions being raised as to whether or not that's the issue, or if it's a case of "run the eeeevil abortionists out of town". I'm inclined to think - especially considering that it's in what I'm sure is a bustling, civilized metropolis of Aurora, IL - that there's a good bit of that going on.

And that pisses me off.

"I told my children we were going to come out and pray for babies," Oswego resident Melissa Spartz said before the meeting as her 3-year-old and 5-year-old sat in their stroller.

Planned Parenthood/Chicago Area officials want to open a full-service health center. Abortion services would account for about 10 percent of the care provided there.

You know what the 90% of what they do is? It's stuff like this: Cancer screenings. Education sessions. Birth control. Prenatal health care. Oooh, very controversial, right? Clearly, this organization is going to morally bankrupt the lovely town of Aurora.

Planned Parenthood clinics provide health care to those who likely couldn't afford it otherwise. It's my personal opinion that sometimes that's going to include abortions, and if you don't like that and you're anyone but the involved patient and doctor you can shut up or go straight to hell. But even if you're vehemently anti-choice, what the hell is your problem with what's essentially a low-cost health clinic? Would you prefer pregnant women not see doctors? Would you prefer teenagers to just have unprotected sex for lack of condoms?

Argh.

And again

Right, I've calmed down a bit since this morning. I'm still pissed off over the Supreme Court's ruling, but am no longer frothing at the mouth.

I can't contest that having an abortion may be extremely traumatic for some women. I'd like to first point out that for some it may not be, but regardless, some people will find it so. That's a fact. And I have the utmost sympathy for a woman who finds herself making that choice.

But that's not the issue. People do things that might cause them grief and anguish. Marriage and divorce come to mind: it might work out great for some people, while for others it can lead to all sorts of emotional trauma. You can't legislate against things because someone might get their feelings hurt. That's absurd, far beyond the scope of the government's role, and absolutely impossible to do.

Then there's another teeny, tiny little issue: this intense emotional duress is not a recognized syndrome in the medical community and apparently quite rare. So say a whole bunch of professionals who actually, I assume, know what they're talking about, as opposed to us armchair justices.

"Yes, but it also effects the embryo, thus worsening the situation," you may argue. To which I have a few choice responses.
1. I don't give a flying crap. One of the huge problems with the current ruling is this: there is no exception for the woman's health. I don't care if there are other options available. If your health is being threatened, the state should not be taking away options. I support legalizing medical marijuana, I support legalizing euthanasia, I support stem-cell research, and I support freedom of choice in all reproductive matters. This, I think, is most aggravating to me: it is explicitly saying that women are second-class citizens to lumps of cells that aren't even people, let alone citizens.
2. An embryo is not a person. Most aborted fetuses could not survive outside the uterus at the time of abortion. They are not capable of conscious thought as such. Neither their body nor mind are functional. They are, quite literally, parasites. We all begin as parasites. Some of us make it out of that stage. Some don't. Such is life. If you adopt a very young puppy, would you refuse to de-worm the pup because you don't want to take a life?
2a. Do you use snap-traps to catch mice in your kitchen? Do you kill mosquitoes and spiders? Do you hunt or fish? Best of all, do you support the death penalty, in any situation whatsoever? The shut your mouth and your hypocritical ranting about the "sanctity of life". If we're going to bring that into the argument you don't get to pick and choose what's life and what's not.
3. Now, I'll say that this is only a half-point:

The one woman on the Supreme Court voted against upholding the ban.

Now, think about that for a moment.

The one Supreme Court justice with a uterus, the one Supreme Court justice for whom abortion was/could be a possible decision voted against the ban.

I can already hear your argument about how men are touched by the issue as well, as the sperm comes from somewhere etc, to which I say: sure. They are effected. But nowhere near as much. It's a remote thing, and if a man wants, he can deliver his sperm and book it out of there. A woman, not so much.

The only woman on the Supreme Court voted against upholding the ban.

I think that's pretty damn telling.

Uh-huh.

Supreme court:

But never until Wednesday had the court held that an abortion procedure could be prohibited because the procedure itself, not the pregnancy, threatened a woman’s health — mental health, in this case, and moral health as well. In his majority opinion, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy suggested that a pregnant woman who chooses abortion falls away from true womanhood.

“Respect for human life finds an ultimate expression in the bond of love the mother has for her child,” he said.

Justice Kennedy conceded that “we find no reliable data” on whether abortion in general, or the procedure prohibited by the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, causes women emotional harm. But he said it was nonetheless “self-evident” and “unexceptional to conclude” that “some women” who choose to terminate their pregnancies suffer “regret,” “severe depression,” “loss of esteem” and other ills.

SHUT UP, you idiotic jackass. I'm sure plenty of men have regrets after vasectomies, should we outlaw them? What about boob jobs? Cosmetic dentistry?

It's a personal choice, and the Supreme Court (which, with one exception, is populated by men, all but one of them white, all of them no doubt rich) would do well to get it's hands the hell away from my uterus, thank you very much.

Christ, the elective eye surgery I had when I was a child probably left me with "emotional harm". Should we ban that?