What is citizenship and what does it mean? What does it entail and imply besides voting, paying your taxes (hopefully on time) and getting mildly interested in the news? What does citizenship mean for you besides your passport and the fact you are – or aren’t  – a patriot? Definition borderlining from hardcore nationalism to unabashed globalism has flooded our brains ever since the door of coporate politics have somehow marginalized political activists as crazies with a side note of 1917 nostalgia. They managed to redefine key terms, key definitions, reword their own Constitution and their own belief so they could sell it to the mass of consumers – the citizens – without them ever questioning what’s really written in the small print at the back of the package. Why put on your reading glasses when the package itself is so flashy?

But being a citizen doesn’t only involve rights, it also involves duties, and that is something I am afraid my generation has lost sight of a while ago. Citizenship does imply getting away from your PS3 every 2, 4, 6 years to elect a local or national official, and sometimes evokes the nasty memory of using a calculator in order to pay taxes “to the man”, those same taxes that have been at the heart of a controversy ever since the Republicans did not find any other topic besides abortion to filibuster about. The idea of citizenship is entirely tied to the idea of state and it seems the very concept, Montesquieu or Tocqueville or Rousseau as you can be, is disappearing, melting away, fading in the distance. It is dangerous. It is dangerous because with a fading state comes fading citizenship, directly involving fading responsibilities… and fading rights.

Being a citizen is a full time job. It requires of you to be informed and to do research. It requires a minimum amount of education and the courage to know you can bring down a wall if needed be. Being a citizen means being in charge. The past eight years, the United States has been telling the masses their citizen passes had been revoked and that Big Daddy was going to fix it all for them while they’re finishing that pack of Cheetos. Well, a real citizen would have raised a very skeptical eyebrow. Right now, we are told that a big state, a state that controls and a state that legislates is a state that oversteps the boundaries of the United States Constitution, and that Rick Perry wants to take off and take Texas with him. But what happens to citizens? I mean, all of them, every single one of them? The black one, the white one, the latino one… the gay one?

Yes, this is where I am going. All men and women are born equal. Every single detail is just a part of the fabric that makes it a whole. I am talking stupid, Hallmark-crafted melting pot here. I am talking about the values of citizenship being destroyed by a part of the population who believes citizenship is about controlling other citizens by voting on other citizens’ rights, therefore destroying the balance of equality created – and supposedly protected – by the state. People voted for Obama because they wanted hope, they wanted change, and they were sick and tired of the lax attitude Bush showed to the CEOs swallowing $500 bills with their Cheerios. By voting for Obama, they somehow reclaimed some of that control: they showed up in massive groups, the young voted like they never did, Obama was given a mandate, for a very long time in American history, we felt like we had a representative that actually realised he was just this – a citizen, a citizen given a mandate by other citizens, to do what citizens wanted.

This is why the issue of gay rights is a federal issue, an issue Obama has to take care of, not a grassroots, state-by-state decision to be made. Inequality prevails within each state between those who can afford to lobby for their cause, and those who have only ideologies and books to distribute. There are those with the money, and those with the only excuse of being citizens. The first ones are using their tools against the second ones. This is precisely the reason why states exist: because human nature forces the majority to restrain the minority against its natural strive towards freedom. Man is a selfish animal, that somehow knows about empathy and solidarity through only damage, trauma, and profound dismay. Man has shown his wonders when faced with complete and utter horror. Man has moved with each other with man had no choice but to link arms with other men in order to make it out alive. In times of peace and of general, even if relative, rest, man will only tend to his own lawn. This is a sad story that we have been told by the New York Senate today as it followed into Maine’s footsteps by withdrawing rights from gay couples to marry.

Someone on Twitter – aurosan not to name them – had a very good point. “I haven’t seen any secular argument against gay marriage”, he said, “which is in itself a civil ceremony. This is not about whether we should marry in Church, this is about we should marry in the town hall”. Indeed, there are no secular arguments going against the perpetual inequality and double-standards that are rife in this country. Manipulated by the religious rights and caught at the throat by those who decided citizenship was nothing more than a beautiful word a horrible lie, the Congress is not moving forward, and Obama remains mute, despite the Human Rights Campaign starting to get angsty. Citizenship has disappeared for as long as there will not be thousands in the streets deciding that no one should have their rights taken away from them. There is a time for a national parade, a time for revolution, a time when citizens of all walks of life, color and sexual orientation decide that their citizenship means more to them than the right to pay taxes and be an impersonal number on a Governor’s file. The issue of equality has already been debated in this country and it had been decided that no one should ever be deprived of the rights some have. This was right for women, this was right for black people; it is now time, at the eve of a new decade, to decide the LGBT people are Americans before they are LGBT; that they are citizens before they are LGBT; and what that means, is that their LGBT tag should be removed or pushed aside, because nothing else matters.

You won’t push Americans out of America’s land. The hatred you might feel will be reflected by the shame of your sons and grandsons’ eyes, as Sean Penn so beautifully put, when they realise you took part in a pogrom against your own people and your fellow citizens, that those who once were your equal are now a sub-par of the community you think you built. The better days you are claiming are ahead of you in this economy will not be shared by those who could have helped rebuild and rebenefit what has been lost. On this path we will turn around to realise we are alone.

Citizenship ties people together and gives them an unbreakable bond. Citizens must protect each other. Once they stop, the citizen that has been called to order the other citizens to rest should put them back at peace. One doesn’t compromise with equality. Only with equality can a country feel wholesome enough to fight any obstacle in its path.


Wow, Sen. Inhofe (R-OK) is another shining star in the Pantheon of god-fearing neoconservatives. Fearing God so much, in fact, they wouldn’t even dare considering the possibility that they screwed up God’s green earth so bad, the earth is starting to warm up to the point it’ll explode and return to the status of extinct star. Ashes to ashes, pixie dust to pixie dust. Following the creationist trend that the globe is not warming up because it’d mean the planet is going through different evolution stages – and most importantly, that it can’t warm up because it’d mean the reckless industrialisation and subsequent irresponsible waste they’ve been carrying for decades would be imputable to them and them only, Inhofe has decided to remain in denial. Denial ain’t just a river in Egypt, he says, because GOD IS STILL UP THERE. Note the ironic use of the word “still” in that sentence: he could have left, but he didn’t. He could have stormed out like a drama queen and slammed the door on his way out, but he didn’t. He could have gone fishing on Mars, but he didn’t. “It must be love, right? He still loves us!” cries Inhofe, warm tears streaming down his weary old face who for a moment was convinced he’d die drowning in the melting icebergs rising up the ocean levels. It’s alright man, God’s still there, and we’re up 2 degrees since last time we checked.

For the longest time the premisces of revolution have been attributed to left-wing extremists, communist extraordinaires and anarchist ideologists alike wishing to destroy oppressive governments in the name of equality and liberty. The other side of the political spectrum was reserved to military coups, endangering the civilian population with militia patrols and the downfall of democratic elections. Novelty has come to us from the land that has brought us everything the modern world is currently using: no, not Hong Kong – the United States is now not just embracing the renewal of white supremacy. After bringing a progressive candidate to the utmost position of leadership in a landmark democratic victory, the right-wing neoconservatives, safely positioned during eight years when one of their ilk managed to scoop the White House have decided they had enough.

It was indeed refreshing and somewhat entertaining to see those self-proclaimed “teabaggers” return to the very foundations of their State and claiming independance from a regime they consider restrictive. The conservatives’ support to the oppressed people of Iran has been just as surprising, considering their previous leader had propulsed himself to the Oval Office in suspicious circumstances. Far from us crazy liberals, dirty socialists and useless progressive to take a bit of joy away from the privileged white male population leading the North American continent.  Far from us to tell the neoconservative press to take it down a notch in order to honor what was a safe, uncontested landmark victory by opponent Barack Obama – let alone tell them that they should sit down and cooperate for the next three years and a half. We are upholding their freedom to express their opinions, and my, am I glad they are.

Jim Robinson (left) with another one of our famously idiotic political commentators, Ann Coulter.

Jim Robinson (left) with another one of our famously idiotic political commentators, Ann Coulter.

For anyone not familiar with the wonderful piece of political writing that is the Free Republic, this internet forum, using the American logo with the words “freedom, equality, justice” emblazoned around the victorious eagle, is full of what the internet is generally full of – random strangers posting random commentaries on random topics, under not-so-random screennames so as to never be identified as the author of those ideologies. A veteran website – it opened in 1997 – its articles have always been a delight to read and its creator, Jim Robinson, hailing from North California, became notorious for the website’s campaign to impeach Bill Clinton in 1998. Things remained relatively tame until their “no censorship” rule (it’s a free website!) started increasing its hatred through bigotry, racism, and overall attacks on civil rights, during the Bush years, that Robinson and his peers never necessarily spared either. All was well, both camps were reeled into the unviable corners of the Free Republic.

But Robinson is wanting more than an internet forum in which everyone can express their point of view. In a Twitter era when every opinion has to be reduced to 140 words or less, Robinson has penned a fine piece of socio-political commentary that the blogosphere has truly been missing since the invention of the Facebook statuses. See, Robinson is issuing a call to overthrow the government. Jim Robinson, from Fresno, California, and head guru of a neo-conservative internet forum, believes the United States are in severe danger and that democracy is pointless to the extent only revolution can serve the interests of the Constitution. If you find this sentence confusing, it’s normal. Here is an extract of his statement:

[…] Therefore, We the People of America choose to exercise our right to throw off and alter the abusive government by peacefully recalling and removing from office the President of the United States, the Vice President of the United States and all U.S. Senators and U.S. Representatives effective immediately.

An interim provisional Chief Executive and congressional representatives will be established as follows: The Secretary of State shall immediately assume the office of interim Chief Executive. The Chief Executive shall appoint and the interim Senate shall confirm an interim Vice President. An immediate election shall be held within each state legislature to appoint two interim senators to represent each sovereign state. A special election shall be held by all states within 30 days to elect interim members of the House of Representatives. Elections for regular government offices shall be conducted in November, 2010 as previously scheduled, except that elections will be held for all elective offices, including President, Vice President and all U.S. Representatives. U.S. Senators will be elected per class schedule by the various state legislatures.

Emphasis mine. In short, Jim Robinson wants to “peacefully” remove Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and all members of Congress in order to temporarily nominate Hilary Clinton so she can organize new Senate and House elections.


Sadly, Robinson is not done with his complete overhaul. He believes amendments 16 and 17 of the Constitution (respectively the suppression of federal income tax, and no more direct election to the Senate), refuses the IRS, and believes all federal buildings and military aid should return to what he believes is the “rightful owner”, ie. the State. Less government, more local independance: this sounds like a call for secession. Texas Governor Rick Perry must be so proud his idea is finally taking root in the minds of the neo-con puppets firmly intending to destroy the last remaining bits of modernity and credibility the United States have left ever since George W Bush left the Office.

George Tiller, a doctor previously on trial in Kansas for helping distressed pregnant teenagers get an abortion, was just shot near a church in Wichita, KS by a “right to life” advocacy group. Recently acquitted for performing late-term abortion, opposing Kansas law, he found death in his hometown. The Kansas City Star just reported, “Tiller was shot just after 10 a.m. at Reformation Lutheran Church at 7601 E. 13th, where he was a member of the congregation. An anonymous police source confirmed Tiller was the victim.”

The 68 years old physician was the director of a clinic called Women’s Health Services in Wichita and had recently been at the core of the abortion debate regarding the now infamous “right to conscience” : Tiller was one of the only two physicians in the Wichita area to accept to practice abortion, and was thus in high demand from the rapidly growing number of patients requiring his servces. Quickly labeled as a baby killer by the local believers, organized mostly by pro-life activist group Operation Rescue, he was soon put on trial for his practices in a highly mediatized debate in which physician to patient confidentiality, appropriate medical care and morality were discussed in a heated political climate. Operation Rescue claimed that despite being declared innocent after his trial, Tiller would not be let off the hook.

This wasn’t the first time pro-lifers attempted to remove George Tiller from this world. In 1993, Shelley Shannon shot the doctor on both arms outside his clinic, and was sentenced to 11 years in prison for her crime. Although he was clearly unsafe and unprotected in his own town and parish, Tiller continued to provide care, aid, and relief as his oath warrants, until today when activists proclaiming to respect humanity and put life above everything else took the liberty to kill one of their peers, in the name of a principle they obviously do not respect.  Because Tiller stood forward in the path of ultra-conservatism in a Bible Belt state, and because he believed in the welfare of his patients, he earned the respect of many, nationwide, regardless of their profession. Jacob Appel, a professor at NYU, supported  Tiller as “a genuine hero who ranks alongside Susan B. Anthony and Martin Luther King Jr. in the pantheon of defenders of human liberty.”

The Wichita court declared him not guilty of the 19 misdemeanor charges of which he was accused. Lonesome gunners decided otherwise. And as many defensors of liberty, as many political, social, and cultural figures who fought for what they believed in, he found death on his way, after attending a church service. As of today, “pro-life” activists will have to debate whether it is life they defend, or whether they are fighting tooth, nail and gunpowder for a discriminatory and arbitrary right of life and death over whomever they choose. The right to life has been shot dead in Kansas today, and the one they described as a baby killer is lying in his grave knowing that he saved lives quietly, discreetly, believing he was only doing what his job required and compelled him to do. Today, womankind lost another one of its anchors, another one of its supporters on its path to freedom and independence in a country that hardly ever remembers it was created to uphold equality and liberty for all.

One can only hope freedom knows how to rise from its ashes, and that Kansas will not be left at the hands of doctor-killers.

R.I.P. George Tiller (1941 - 2009)

R.I.P. George Tiller (1941 - 2009)

The land of the free and home of the braves has been fighting a long-lasting war no one knows if they’re ever going to win: no, this is not about Iraq (for once), it’s about a stranger in a strange land. It’s about our God-protected, world infamous and almost-imperialistic-again American being awash in evil. Wow, and here I was thinking that Amazon was simply being stupid.

Happy Easter, James! Love, educated people.

Happy Easter, James! Love, educated people.

Now, if you focus a little more on such strong religious rhetoric, you do not have such a long list of suspects. It’s either Rick Warren, the AFA, or George W. Bush trying to be awash in ennui and confusing different speeches in different locals. But as it often appears to be the case when absurdity is meeting medieval times at a political crossroads, Focus on the Family’ former chairman James Dobson is responsible for this insult to our collective intelligence. Resigning from the position, Dobson claims that his organization has lost the “culture war” against the internet. Yes, in 2009, this is a discourse that is accepted as normal and regular in some circles, which probably says a lot about the level of education in North America. Dobson is however realistic when he confesses that “humanly speaking”, whatever this is referring to, “we have lost”.

Lost what against whom, you might ask? The culture war against us godless heathens is what. Focus on the Family reckons that the internet has managed to campaign against their morals and values in a way they couldn’t possibly match.  Dobson explains: “[W]e made a lot of progress through the Eighties but then we turned into the Nineties and the internet came along and a new president came along and all of that went away and now we are absolutely awash in evil. And we are right now in the most discouraging period of that long conflict. Humanly speaking, we can say that we have lost all those battles, but God is in control and we are not going to give up now, right?”

A more modern translation of this speech could go as follows: “we managed to rope modernity in throughout the 80s, but then we moved onto the 90s, the internet came along, people had access to information, a Democrat [Bill Clinton] came into office, and all of our hard work went away, and now we are buried deep under a foot-thick blanket of educated people trying to push us now. Humanly speaking, we are still the lowest of the low, but God is in control, so we can stick around for as long as our annual fundraisers allow us to, yes?”

Blaming their descent from respectable lobbying group into hardcore evangelistical doomsday preachers on Bill Clinton is a little far-fetched, but everyone will find a way to agree on the incredible role Google and political blogs have played in the downfall of right-wing fundamentalists. From a greater, easier and faster access to fact-checked information, to the role played by universities and schools into propagating their newfound knowledge on social networking sites, it becomes easily understandable that Dobson and his brethrens were outdone by a fair mile on that fight he believes is not over yet. Granted, we still have Disney and the Jonas Brothers to show us the right way, but at least, the current President in office has made sure we wouldn’t have to book a ticket to Romania in order to abort in peace. At least for the time being. Like any decimating pandemic in history, Focus on the Family might well rise again from its ashes, with another more internet-savvy leader, spreading creationist one-liners on Twitter and buying amazon.com stock.

Yes, humanly speaking, we may have pushed James Dobson out of his chair, but for as long as science, education and knowledge are on our side, we may have to continue fighting for our intelligence, rights, and open-mindedness to win this fight we had started a very long time ago – Enlightenement deserves its name. It’s time we claim it back.

I have to give Prop 8 activists some credit: they managed to become more politically savvy than most Californians; and because their faith-based rage has reached epic proportion, they confronted apathic liberals in their own sunshine state with their own power tool – democracy. It’s beautiful. No, really, it is. There’s nothing better than an inside job. I’m in awe – but I’m also in shock.

Democracy means by the people, for the people – so what could be more democratic than the use of the referendum? A direct popular consultation is always the best way to ensure whatever law/bill/decree is being polled obtains the legitimacy it should always have. Granted, representative democracy is easier, faster and cheaper, but considering the level of dissatisfaction with politicians, Prop 8 activists made sure than they solidified their demands: if Proposition 8 won, they would no longer be marginalized, isolated, mocked and shunned extremists living in forest cabins and drinking water from a well. They would become an integrated part of the American population, using legal tools to express themselves and to become part of the system. The Prop 8 story is so good, it makes Hitler’s perfectly legitimate election look a little bit dull. They could have carried on lobbying with stupid, intelligent design-inspired slogans by the White House and preach at bus stops, but instead, they used their enemies’ tool: majority votes. It’s solid. It works.

On the other hand, there is pretty much a consensus among liberals that the very text submitting Proposition 8 on the California ballot was unconstitutional. Refusing gay marriage on faith-based criterias would simply be a violation of the constitutional principle of separation of church and state, and should have therefore been denied. But Prop8 appeared on the ballot anyway. How so? The process – that allows the public to create state laws or amend a State’s Constitution – is called initiative. It’s extremely easy: the group has to write up the proposition as a petition, and submit it to the Attorney General along with a submission fee (more or less $200 depending on the state). This is far from being a consequential sum to rise, especially if the group is already constituted of more than ten members. The hardest part is to gather enough signatures to make the proposition valid – in California, a proposition must obtain the signatures of at least 5% of registered voters, which are later sent to the Secretary of State for validation.

Your local fourth graders could do this, provided they can spell, organize a bake sale for fundraising and have a little door-to-door activity on Sundays. Bless you, Democracy.

Because the Attorney General failed to recognize Proposition 8 as a constitutional violation and the Secretary of State probably left his daunting task up to an intern that day, it landed on the California ballot on the same day as the Presidential election on November 4th, 2008. I would be more than happy to go into a rant about how ignorant people are only the product of their uneducated environment and the school system has been failing over two generations, but it becomes increasingly hard to blame the population for their lack of information when even their state officials are sleeping on the job / are functionally illiterate / on crack / placing bets on how many times can the US Constitution be ignored to the point it’s hardly relevant anymore. I would even go as far as saying it’s a little pointless to blame state officials when even the White House is dragging the Constitution into the dirt on a daily basis. The Bush Administration created a standard for lawlessness which I am afraid can only be matched by our European equivalent of faggotry, Silvio “Darth Vader” Berlusconi.

So, here’s the deal – on one hand, you have the United States Constitution, supposedly the text against which all laws, bills, decrees, amendments must be measured, the ultimate, supreme founding text (and no, I won’t draw a Kelsen pyramid on MSPaint). On the other hand, you have a proposition submitted by the people (as in “we, the people”) and legally, democratically passed through a referendum process (as in “by the people, for the people”). If one wants to be a hardcore technical jurist, it would be easy to petition the Supreme Court in order to nullify Proposition 8 on grounds on unconstitutionality. But when you think about it, a conflict of legitimacy arises -after all, the people hath spoketh, and the people should reign supreme on the laws being made in a democratic country. Yes, those laws are discriminatory. Yes, they go against the principle of equality. Yes, the question of marriage and its hypothetical restriction to a man and a woman are based on religious beliefs that are not supposed to intervene within the domain of the law. But what if this is what the people want? If one follows this logic… the people can amend the United States Constitution in order to ensure that this secularity no longer prevails, and there goes the amendment that turns everything around.

Well see, I happen to have issues with democracy – this so-called democracy we love when it comes to invading other countries, but hate when the results of the election don’t go our way (I’m talking to you, Dubya). Keep in mind there isn’t just “democracy”, there are “democracies”, as every country seems to have slightly bended some rules in order to fit their own cultural customs; but the jist remains the same. The people are in control, and the government is an executive tool serving the people’s needs (ah, if only…) Everyone gets their chance to speak and voice their opinion during there collective moments of blissful freedom that are elections, and see, I don’t think everyone should have the right to voice their opinion. Call me a fascist, I just think that ignorance is a no-go. Why would we want an ignorant majority to impose their hateful, segregationist belief on a minority that simply just wants to enjoy the fundamental human right that is citizen equality? Back in the 18th century, voters needed to pay or show proof of home ownership to be allowed to registered. Financial and social access to democracy was plain stupid and certainly did not warrant legitimacy. However, a certain level of logic, commitment and education should be required before being allowed to vote. For instance, using faith over fact should definitely be a clue that you should move to the left. Seriously.

I may be taking an extreme position on the topic, but think about it – Thomas Jefferson, who’s probably weeping in his grave as we speak, wrote a pamphlet in which he expresses that the wish for his new nation was for the minority to always be protected from a potentially harmful majority; that the system they created should protect the rights of the minority in case those rights were to be taken away. Constitutional amendments are supposed to create rights, expand civil liberties, move freedom forward – not limit the vision, narrow the view, and discard an entire segment of the population under the pretext that your feelings are more important than theirs. Yes, living in a democratic society implies a considerable level of compromise – but I’ve never heard of any gay movement fighting tooth and nail for religious leaders to be stripped down of their civic rights, for religious families to be torn apart under the pretext they were not good for their kids, or to be beaten up and raped because … because they were being themselves. In that situation, the people has spoken, the people passed their initiative – but the people were wrong, and the law’s duty should have been to anticipate that rise in discriminative behaviour. It didn’t. Now that Prop 8 activists are seeking to implement the retroactivity of the bill – which would nullify all gay marriages pronounced in California – it is time for the Attorney General and for the Supreme Court of California to reinstate their role as guardians of the Constitution and protectors of the minority. A minority that only wanted to fall in love, get married, and raise a little bunch of future taxpayers.

… and so the insanity never ends. We reported yesterday on Obama picking the paragon of hatred and ignorance that is Rick Warren to speak at his highly expected presidential inauguration; but it’s not January 20th yet, this is still 2008, and George W. Bush is still the president in exercice.

theyd rather let you die than give you any rights.

Pro-Life activisits: they'd rather kill you than let you have any rights.

The newest addition to Bush Jr’s Legislation Wall of Shame is the Right to Conscience bill. It already sounds like something  some fascist militia would cram down your throat until you choke on it.  And you will: this bill will allow a pharmacist to refuse a contraceptive pill prescription in the name of his ‘conscience (understand: belief, faith, spirituality, Bible Camp, etc.) The same way that some doctors have refused to practice abortion because they believed their faith prevailed over the medical oath, this bill will allow any rightwing nutjob in a drugstore to start pedaling backwards on the women’s health bike. Rejoice, my friends, Medieval Times Fair is coming to town. Because it’s now all about timing, the bill will go into effect on January 18th, only days before the new administration comes into office.

As quoted by Women’s Health News, “The administration made almost no substantive changes to the regulation following the period of public comment, says Adam Sonfield, senior public policy associate at the Guttmacher Institute. “The 200,000 comments in opposition to the rule they dismiss,” says Sonfield. “They pretend to respond directly to them, but they actually don’t.” The only change the administration made to the rule is to expand the definition of the workforce the rule applies to — for instance, it now includes contractors.” Up until the very end, Dubya would have made it very clear that the concept of democracy and majority votes do not apply to his presidency – or shall I say reign: Parliamentary votes are dismissed … probably under his own right to conscience.

As per usual when it comes to legislative tactics, it’s more about running around the law than touching on it. The first draft of the bill relied on non-medical – and thus not legally approved – definitions of pregnancy, mainly that it begins at fertilization, dangerously implying that contraception is synonym of abortion.  The second draft, currently published, has slightly amended this notion, but broadens the scope in order to protect contractors and practicioners willing to associate the two concepts.  More importantly, the moral objection the bill allows – the “right to conscience” – is not strictly restricted to religious belief. In order to protect themselves from a secular, liberal opposition to the legislation, the bill explains that this ‘conscience’ can mean any personal moral commitment, which is a much broader protection that the traditional, run-of-the-mill conscience clauses targeting solely religious and spiritual beliefs. Probably warned by the Prop 8 debacle that exposed the lack of separation between church and state, the Right to Conscience Bill makes sure that even Bush’s atheist friends, all two of them, can oppose any freedom just because they want to, not because God told them to – this excuse was probably getting stale.

So, here we are back to the godforsaken age when women’s bodies were regulated by a dominant force, where women’s health was in the hands of a faith-based industry, and where ‘conscience’ was said to dictate another human right violation. There used to be days when conscience would lead towards revolutionary, progressive movements; when conscience would help you stand anti-war grounds, when it would put your voting ballot against a liberticide governing party, when conscience would strive for equality and human solidarity. Now conscience has been shelved with irrational, divisive, ignorant and health-challenged methods of population control, chaining every aspiration to the wall. In the early 1920s, a young austrian writer, Stefan Zweig, had already denounced the lethal dangers of wild, uncontrolled methods of contraception and abortion (in his novel Twenty-four hours in the life of a woman). With this bill, conscience is only a retroactive method back to a day and age when the earth was flat and the sun revolved around it.

Se mueve, Dubya, se mueve.

Source: Women’s Health News on WordPress /Jezebel / ONTD_political