SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[The Stormbringer]

All Republicans are doing is forcing women to seek health care in other states. That's it. They're accomplishing absolutely nothing but penalizing women, and girls

Yes? And? Working as intended. The real challenge is trying to make them come out and the open and say this to peoples' faces, because there's some morons who will never believe it unless it comes straight from the jackasses' mouths.

[Rasulis]

In several days we will find out how Ohio citizens feel about abortion.

At the same time, Democrats will find out if abortion issue can win elections in Virginia.

If they can win in Ohio and gain seats in Virginia, 2024 is going to be a good year for Democrats.

[Benggaul]

In several days we will find out how Ohio citizens feel about abortion.

At the same time, Democrats will find out if abortion issue can win elections in Virginia.

If they can win in Ohio and gain seats in Virginia, 2024 is going to be a good year for Democrats.

I'm not optimistic, if I'm honest. There has been one helluva lot of brainwashing going on the past decade in particular and a lot of elections ratfucking by the GOP in that same period. It's a lot to overcome. Especially since every election since 2016 has unironically been "the most important election ever" and I'm hearing a lot of fatigue about the whole thing out in the world. I'm not saying we should be giving up hope or just stop fighting or whatever, but I'm tempering my expectations--not so much about the way the voting goes, but increasingly whether or not the GOP will abide by their losses or be held accountable if they don't. I would love to be pleasantly surprised, however.

[Edge-]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ns-ban-blocked

Kansas cannot enforce laws that would force abortion patients to wait 24 hours for the procedure or be given anti-abortion talking points, a judge ruled on Monday.

The move comes months after Kansans overwhelmingly voted to protect abortion rights in the state’s constitution.

Judge K Christopher Jayaram’s preliminary injunction will freeze a host of abortion restrictions. Some of the restrictions date back to the 1990s, such as a law that requires abortion patients to wait 24 hours between their initial consultation and their procedure. Others were passed as recently as this year, such as a law that would have required abortion providers to indicate to patients that their pill-induced abortion could be “reversed” – a claim that is not backed up by science.

The suspended abortion restrictions probably not only infringe on patients’ constitutional right to bodily autonomy guaranteed by the Kansas state constitution, Jayaram said, but they probably violate abortion providers’ free speech rights.

“The Court has great respect for the deeply held beliefs on either side of this contentious issue,” Jayaram wrote in a 92-page order. “Nevertheless, the State’s capacity to legislate pursuant to its own moral scruples is necessarily curbed by the Kansas Constitution and its Bill of Rights. The State may pick a side and viewpoint, but in doing so, it may not trespass upon the natural inalienable rights of the people.”

The John county district judge’s order is set to last until a trial in the case, which is scheduled for 2024.

Once again, the courts remain an important bulwark against the Republican party's continued assault on peoples Constitutional rights at both the state and federal level, and in stark contrast to where public support actually is on the topic.

Last year, Kansas became the first state to vote on abortion after the fall of Roe v Wade. Usually a reliably red state, Kansas stunned the nation when abortion rights supporters won a landslide victory to keep abortion rights in the state constitution.

Because as the article reminds us, Republicans in Kansas put this question to the voters and they were very clear about their opinion on it. And that, apparently, made state Republicans very unhappy so they decided to ignore public opinion and instead attempt to take the rights of girls and women away from them while mandating that doctors spread medical misinformation.

[Edge-]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ginia-election

The ad opens with the sound of a fetal heartbeat.

“Most people believe that abortion at the moment of birth is wrong, far beyond any reasonable limit. Not Virginia Democrats,” a female narrator says, just before the sound of a baby cooing and crying. “They fought to make late-term abortions the rule, not the exception.”

Spoilers: This is not true, as we've seen in deep red state after deep red state as they've rejected Republican efforts for near complete bans on access to reproductive health care for girls and women.

n another rhetorical tactic, Virginia Republicans are also striking the word “ban” from their vocabulary and replacing it with “limit”. In October, Youngkin’s political action committee, Spirit of Virginia, dropped $1.4m into an ad buy that included a spot focused on abortion. “It’s just not true. Their lies about abortion,” a female voice says at the beginning of the ad. “It’s disinformation. Politics at its worst.

“Here’s the truth. There is no ban,” the ad’s narrator continues, as a baby begins to gurgle in the background. “Virginia Republicans support a reasonable 15-week limit with exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother.”

In a sign of just how central this message is to the Republican state senator Siobhan Dunnavant’s re-election campaign, visitors to her website are greeted with a pop-up ad titled “Not a Ban … ”

And Republicans are still dishonestly trying to change the definitions of words. If people are "limited" from seeking abortion services after 15 weeks, they're also banned from it. Same effect, losers.

It seems that rather than change their position on this topic despite repeated instances of Americans loudly telling them that the Republican party is out of step with Americans on it, Republicans seem to think their primary problem is that they're just being too honest about their position and if they just dishonestly reframe it that'll get support for their unchanged positions.

[tehdang]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ginia-election



Spoilers: This is not true, as we've seen in deep red state after deep red state as they've rejected Republican efforts for near complete bans on access to reproductive health care for girls and women.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5n9Rw4y82c
The ad

(Hint: Quotes section of testimony of Kathy Tran regarding HB2491, lifting existing restrictions on third trimester abortions)

Truthful that Virginia Democrats tried to pass a bill permitting legal abortions prior to the moment of birth. The backlash to the video testimony, including questioning from Republicans, led to the bill being tabled in committee. The Republican asked if the bill would permit abortions up to the woman going into labor.

And Republicans are still dishonestly trying to change the definitions of words. If people are "limited" from seeking abortion services after 15 weeks, they're also banned from it. Same effect, losers.

It seems that rather than change their position on this topic despite repeated instances of Americans loudly telling them that the Republican party is out of step with Americans on it, Republicans seem to think their primary problem is that they're just being too honest about their position and if they just dishonestly reframe it that'll get support for their unchanged positions.

I'm afraid that's just politics. Republicans will say that their exceptions to the limit mean it's not banned. Is abortion banned after 15 weeks? No, several exceptions exist that allow abortions after 15 weeks. Democrats will say the issue is access to reproductive health care, when it's about abortion access. Republicans will say that description is misleading. Those are different pitches to voters, and the heart of democracy is that voters decide which vision they agree with. The same goes with pro-choice implying anti-choice and pro-life implying anti-life.

And they're both going to post the ads and voters decide what kind of framing they agree with.

[Edge-]

Truthful that Virginia Democrats tried to pass a bill permitting legal abortions prior to the moment of birth. The backlash to the video testimony, including questioning from Republicans, led to the bill being tabled in committee. The Republican asked if the bill would permit abortions up to the woman going into labor.

This is the kind of dishonest framing we're talking about.

What doctors are going to perform an elective abortion when a woman is in labor? Do you know of any? Are you familiar with any examples of this?

Because this is a constant issue that is discussed by Republicans, yet they never seem to point to examples of this kind of behavior. And the underlying baseline assumption is that both the girl/woman and the medical professionals present are all basically amoral monsters, complete with frequent fictionalized descriptions of the process and what happens after like that one lady that claimed Washington D.C. was powered by burning aborted fetuses.

So excuse me if I ignore this complete and total non-issue and the dishonest framing around it. The democratic position remains this is a health care decision between a patient and their doctors and other medical professionals, not a place for the state to get involved in legislating what operations may be performed and when, with no flexibility for the very frank reality that every body and medical issue is different and that medical professionals are not monsters seeking to cause maximum harm.

[Endus]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5n9Rw4y82c
The ad

(Hint: Quotes section of testimony of Kathy Tran regarding HB2491, lifting existing restrictions on third trimester abortions)

Truthful that Virginia Democrats tried to pass a bill permitting legal abortions prior to the moment of birth. The backlash to the video testimony, including questioning from Republicans, led to the bill being tabled in committee. The Republican asked if the bill would permit abortions up to the woman going into labor.

These arguments are intellectually pathetic, and ignore everything about the actual issue to push an emotion-based appeal to attack women's basic human rights.

If a late-term abortion is necessary, it's nearly always because of serious medical complications. Not personal choice. In cases of personal issues rather than a medical one with the fetus, the process that would be recommended is inducing birth or removing the fetus intact by C-section, not generally abortion.

That's the problem; medical ethics also exist, and the extremists pushing these attacks on women's rights simply do not understand what having a sense of personal or professional ethics even looks like. Or they're openly lying about it, at least.

I'm afraid that's just politics. Republicans will say that their exceptions to the limit mean it's not banned. Is abortion banned after 15 weeks? No, several exceptions exist that allow abortions after 15 weeks.

And they'd be lying.

Nobody should give a shit about your preferred phrasing. The question is whether describing it as a "ban" is accurate, and it is. At that point, Republicans' preferred jargon is completely irrelevant. They don't get to define the language used to accurately communicate the facts of their position.

Democrats will say the issue is access to reproductive health care, when it's about abortion access.

Access to abortion care is part of access to reproductive health care.

This is what I mean when I say you don't get to limit the language. What you just said is a lie.

Republicans will say that description is misleading. Those are different pitches to voters, and the heart of democracy is that voters decide which vision they agree with. The same goes with pro-choice implying anti-choice and pro-life implying anti-life.

Again, we're talking about a lie, here. Pro-choice does accurately imply that the opposing stance is "anti-choice". Because that's literally what "pro-life" is; the denial of women's ability to choose whether to continue a pregnancy.

"Pro-life" meanwhile, doesn't give a fuck about "life". The same people supporting this position don't generally push for support for single parents and young children after birth, because the safety and security of that child does not actually matter to them. What matters is the denial of women's right to choose what happens to their own bodies. That's why "pro-life" is entirely focused on abortion rights, and not support networks to protect those facing poverty and health challenges for those in need.

When your "framing" is dishonest, it's just a lie.

[tehdang]

This is the kind of dishonest framing we're talking about.

What doctors are going to perform an elective abortion when a woman is in labor? Do you know of any? Are you familiar with any examples of this?

Because this is a constant issue that is discussed by Republicans, yet they never seem to point to examples of this kind of behavior. And the underlying baseline assumption is that both the girl/woman and the medical professionals present are all basically amoral monsters, complete with frequent fictionalized descriptions of the process and what happens after like that one lady that claimed Washington D.C. was powered by burning aborted fetuses.

So excuse me if I ignore this complete and total non-issue and the dishonest framing around it. The democratic position remains this is a health care decision between a patient and their doctors and other medical professionals, not a place for the state to get involved in legislating what operations may be performed and when, with no flexibility for the very frank reality that every body and medical issue is different and that medical professionals are not monsters seeking to cause maximum harm.

I don't think you get one inch past making this a difference of opinion. Yes, a law that Democrats pushed in Virginia permitted abortions up to the moment of birth. But you want to argue that it would never be made the case. Fine, push that argument. Persuade people. I'll still take making such a procedure illegal under the law, barring only the most serious exceptions. You still want it legal, as much as you want to persuade others it would never happen that way.

Also, excuse me when I totally reject that this is only a "health care decision between a patient and their doctors." There's a second patient in that hospital room. That patient is the baby. That patient gets huge consideration once its post-viability in my book. I'm talking about huge consideration beyond whatever pretense you hold at no doctor and no mother making the wrong decision. That's not good enough. Frankly, your total disregard for the second patient in the room gives me great reason to have some legal protections for that developing life. His or her life is involved, and that's reason to get the state involved as a new citizen's life is concerned. I'll take all the rhetorical licks about potential "amoral monsters" out there, and say the same thing about those who would deny a separate life and no value to the baby.

If 15-week, or my preferred 20/24-week protections can't be the reasonable compromise, I'm happy to see each state take it to the voting booth with representatives making that a campaign position. Each fight, win or lose, is a chance to present conflicting ideas to free citizens on what laws should govern that state. And the results can be incorporated into the next campaign, future leaders, and future compromise.

[Edge-]

I don't think you get one inch past making this a difference of opinion. Yes, a law that Democrats pushed in Virginia permitted abortions up to the moment of birth. But you want to argue that it would never be made the case. Fine, push that argument. Persuade people.

Persuade people of what?

That something they're worried might happen has never happened and their concern over it happening is exclusively caused by dishonest propagandists putting the false notion in their head?

You keep asking people to take patently dishonest argument seriously. I won't do that. These people are concerned over something they think is happening, or might happen, because they've been lied to. I'm not about wasteful, pointless legislation that exists solely because some very dishonest people lied.

Also, excuse me when I totally reject that this is only a "health care decision between a patient and their doctors." There's a second patient in that hospital room. That patient is the baby.

There is not, especially not legally. Unless we're back to whether someone who is pregnant can use the carpool lane. And then figuring out the huge other set of issues that comes alongside that kind of definition.

That patient gets huge consideration once its post-viability in my book. I'm talking about huge consideration beyond whatever pretense you hold at no doctor and no mother making the wrong decision.

I've never said that, though.

I'm saying your concerns are largely over things that you worry might happen, but are born of either your ignorance or your own imagination that obstetricians and others would get into that field because they're just out here to do abortions or something which is pretty weird.

I'm saying that restrictive legislation is usually in response to a problem - things like speed limits and seatbelt laws are a good example! And that there continues to be no "problem" to address here short of a bunch of conservatives with a very overactive imagination who uncritically accept tales of fetus's ripped from the womb and thrown into the incinerator to power Washington D.C. - which again does not happen.

Frankly, your total disregard for the second patient in the room gives me great reason to have some legal protections for that developing life.

You write as if medical professionals would never have regard for the fetus/developing baby or as if there aren't times when medical professionals will not carry out procedures due to the risks they post or other objections.

Doctors aren't monsters dude, I promise you. I bet your GP is a pretty good person, even!

If 15-week, or my preferred 20/24-week protections can't be the reasonable compromise, I'm happy to see each state take it to the voting booth with representatives making that a campaign position. Each fight, win or lose, is a chance to present conflicting ideas to free citizens on what laws should govern that state. And the results can be incorporated into the next campaign, future leaders, and future compromise.

The compromise remains that it's a decision between the individual and their care team, and that we need to trust that girls, women, and medical professionals can make the correct decisions for themselves without the state needing to weigh in on the issue.

And its a position that continues to be largely popular across the nation, in red states and blue states, as we saw in pretty spectacular fashion as attempt after attempt by Republicans to either ask their voters to restrict access to reproductive health care or otherwise remove language that might enshrine that right went down in flames, even in deep red states where there was broad expectations that Republican efforts would be successful.

Which is why Republicans in those states are continually seeking to keep the issue out of the hands of the voters, since they know they can't win when you actually put this to voters and their only chance is to ignore their voters will. Similar to those times Republican legislators have been upset that voters in their state might pass a ballot measure they don't like, so the legislate to kill the will of the people.

[Endus]

I don't think you get one inch past making this a difference of opinion. Yes, a law that Democrats pushed in Virginia permitted abortions up to the moment of birth. But you want to argue that it would never be made the case. Fine, push that argument. Persuade people. I'll still take making such a procedure illegal under the law, barring only the most serious exceptions. You still want it legal, as much as you want to persuade others it would never happen that way.

Why would you take that stance? That's what you folks never come out and admit, other than to lie about your motives, determinable by how you don't uphold the principles you claim elsewhere.

Also, excuse me when I totally reject that this is only a "health care decision between a patient and their doctors." There's a second patient in that hospital room. That patient is the baby. That patient gets huge consideration once its post-viability in my book. I'm talking about huge consideration beyond whatever pretense you hold at no doctor and no mother making the wrong decision. That's not good enough. Frankly, your total disregard for the second patient in the room gives me great reason to have some legal protections for that developing life. His or her life is involved, and that's reason to get the state involved as a new citizen's life is concerned. I'll take all the rhetorical licks about potential "amoral monsters" out there, and say the same thing about those who would deny a separate life and no value to the baby.

Case in point. This is all a lie.
Do you demand all miscarriages be investigated as potential homicides? Of course not, that would.d be insane. But if the fetus is a person, you'd have to, ethically.
Worse, the argument you make is fundamentally that the fetus' right to life supercedes the pregnant person's riht to bodily autonomy. There is not one single other situation where anyone's right to life trumps any other person's bodily autonomy. Literally none. You skip right past having to explain why abortion would be an exception. And if you think it isn't a special case, you're arguing for forced organ and tissue harvesting, against people's will. The right to life of patients who need blood or your second kidney overrule your bodily autonomy, in your view, right?

Your position is fundamentally religious, and your religion has no business being put into law. That's a naked attack on everyone else's freedom of religion. Religious rules tell you how you should act; the moment you start trying to force others to follow your religious views, you're a religious fascist and need your abuses to be stopped.

If 15-week, or my preferred 20/24-week protections can't be the reasonable compromise, I'm happy to see each state take it to the voting booth with representatives making that a campaign position. Each fight, win or lose, is a chance to present conflicting ideas to free citizens on what laws should govern that state. And the results can be incorporated into the next campaign, future leaders, and future compromise.

Those "conflicting ideas" in this case are being examined, they just fail to pass basic tests of reason, logic, and ethics. They fail because they're shitty ideas based on bigotry, not because there's a conspiracy against you.

[Rasulis]

By next week we will find out how Democrats, which are running full tilt on the abortion platform, fare in Ohio, Virginia and Kentucky. Also, if Republicans can gain seats in New Jersey. In Mississippi, we have the second cousin of Elvis Presley, Democrat Brandon Presley, against the incumbent GOP governor, Tate Reeves. We also have PA supreme court. Although, Democrats have 4 - 2 advantage in the state court with one open seat. It will be a pretty eventful week.

[s_bushido]

I don't think you get one inch past making this a difference of opinion. Yes, a law that Democrats pushed in Virginia permitted abortions up to the moment of birth. But you want to argue that it would never be made the case. Fine, push that argument. Persuade people. I'll still take making such a procedure illegal under the law, barring only the most serious exceptions. You still want it legal, as much as you want to persuade others it would never happen that way.

It must be legal so that doctors have the option to actually provide proper medical care without worrying about being arrested by fundamentalist pieces of shit who think their literally zero training in any medical field is more of a qualification than an actual medical professional's to determine fetal viability and threats to the pregnant person's life. Which, as has been repeated ad nauseam, is the only reason an abortion "up to the moment of birth" is ever considered...despite conservative lunatics desperately pretending otherwise.

Which renders the rest of this pathetic screed utterly meaningless:

Also, excuse me when I totally reject that this is only a "health care decision between a patient and their doctors." There's a second patient in that hospital room. That patient is the baby. That patient gets huge consideration once its post-viability in my book. I'm talking about huge consideration beyond whatever pretense you hold at no doctor and no mother making the wrong decision. That's not good enough. Frankly, your total disregard for the second patient in the room gives me great reason to have some legal protections for that developing life. His or her life is involved, and that's reason to get the state involved as a new citizen's life is concerned. I'll take all the rhetorical licks about potential "amoral monsters" out there, and say the same thing about those who would deny a separate life and no value to the baby.

No one considering ending a pregnancy at that point HASN'T already taken the health of the baby into account. The point is that it is the "doctor and mother's" decision to make. Not some useless fuckwits holding some political power.

[unfilteredJW]

"We're terrible people so everyone else has to be as bad as us."

It's always projection.

[cubby]

It must be legal so that doctors have the option to actually provide proper medical care without worrying about being arrested by fundamentalist pieces of shit who think their literally zero training in any medical field is more of a qualification than an actual medical professional's to determine fetal viability and threats to the pregnant person's life. Which, as has been repeated ad nauseam, is the only reason an abortion "up to the moment of birth" is ever considered...despite conservative lunatics desperately pretending otherwise.

Which renders the rest of this pathetic screed utterly meaningless:



No one considering ending a pregnancy at that point HASN'T already taken the health of the baby into account. The point is that it is the "doctor and mother's" decision to make. Not some useless fuckwits holding some political power.

That's the key - all abortions must be legal so that healthcare providers aren't hampered by uncertainty in the law. As an ancillary benefit, women can have 100% control over their bodies and their medical decisions.

[Edge-]

That's the key - all abortions must be legal so that healthcare providers aren't hampered by uncertainty in the law. As an ancillary benefit, women can have 100% control over their bodies and their medical decisions.

Case in point, this thread and the repeated horror stories of women not being able to get crucial care because the hospital was unsure if it was opening itself up to liability as a woman was bleeding to death and whatnot.

Which I'll note that I still see remarkably little about Republicans working to address those problems as we were assured that these "pro-life" Republicans would do. Instead we just have...them continuing to maintain the status quo.

Weird that their rhetoric and actions are so consistently at odds, innit?

[cubby]

Case in point, this thread and the repeated horror stories of women not being able to get crucial care because the hospital was unsure if it was opening itself up to liability as a woman was bleeding to death and whatnot.

Which I'll note that I still see remarkably little about Republicans working to address those problems as we were assured that these "pro-life" Republicans would do. Instead we just have...them continuing to maintain the status quo.

Weird that their rhetoric and actions are so consistently at odds, innit?

The entire abortion argument from the conservative side has been a power play to control women's bodies. The Neo-Cons dress it up dozens of different ways, but in the end, it's a biblical to control and dominate women. How it actually ends...well, the United States might actually lose this one. Because all the conservatives have to do is agree that a fetus is a person, and then award it a Social Security number, and that's it. Put the whole thing under 1st amendment religious freedom, and it's all over.

[Adamas102]

And they're both going to post the ads and voters decide what kind of framing they agree with.

Framing doesn’t matter one bit when you’re dealing with people that are so unbelievably stupid that they believe “abortion right before birth” is a thing. Even the “super extreme activist abortion doctor” that you ignorantly reference from time to time had a good 9 week buffer (anything beyond that HAS to be a serious medical emergency given that the procedure itself becomes more dangerous to the woman at those later stages). Seriously, anyone that’s dumb enough to believe the Republican narrative on this is too dumb to be reasoned with.

[tehdang]

Framing doesn’t matter one bit when you’re dealing with people that are so unbelievably stupid that they believe “abortion right before birth” is a thing. Even the “super extreme activist abortion doctor” that you ignorantly reference from time to time had a good 9 week buffer. Seriously, anyone that’s dumb enough to believe the Republican narrative on this is too dumb to be reasoned with.

Good point. They should consider calling it a buffer instead of a limit.

It must be legal so that doctors have the option to actually provide proper medical care without worrying about being arrested by fundamentalist pieces of shit who think their literally zero training in any medical field is more of a qualification than an actual medical professional's to determine fetal viability and threats to the pregnant person's life.

Now who's calling doctors monsters that can't determine fetal viability and threats to the pregnant person's life? They're performing abortions under the legal exceptions and have no worries.

No one considering ending a pregnancy at that point HASN'T already taken the health of the baby into account. The point is that it is the "doctor and mother's" decision to make. Not some useless fuckwits holding some political power.

Nothing will change if your hard quasi-religious belief always holds true. The doctor I cited last time around performed late-term abortions for invalid reasons because he considered every pregnancy to be a health-risk for the mother. I'm going to posit that he isn't the most unique snowflake in the entire country and every state, and other doctors let personal feelings and (troubling and difficult to be sure) life circumstances to tip the scales in favor of permitting a late-term abortion. They're taking the baby into account, just not setting the bar high enough for what constitutes permission to end the life, in that instance.

[Endus]

Now who's calling doctors monsters that can't determine fetal viability and threats to the pregnant person's life? They're performing abortions under the legal exceptions and have no worries.

Literally just the pro-lifers. I have no idea where you thought you were going with this.

Nothing will change if your hard quasi-religious belief always holds true. The doctor I cited last time around performed late-term abortions for invalid reasons because he considered every pregnancy to be a health-risk for the mother. I'm going to posit that he isn't the most unique snowflake in the entire country and every state, and other doctors let personal feelings and (troubling and difficult to be sure) life circumstances to tip the scales in favor of permitting a late-term abortion. They're taking the baby into account, just not setting the bar high enough for what constitutes permission to end the life, in that instance.

You're literally just making shit up at this point, because you want it to be true. That's delusional thinking, not reality.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't really want a back-and-forth on abortion again, but you've brought this up multiple times and I'm not sure I got a sufficient answer from you.

What bar can laws set that's fluid enough for doctors to make educated decisions about all factors involved, considering the plethora of issues a pregnancy involves? Keeping in mind that there's environmental, monetary, medical, availability, access issues that aren't uniform in the entire country.

Basically, what guardrails/buffers/limits do you find acceptable, but also allow doctors and women to make decisions that fits each individual situation?

Let's recall as well that there is literally no other circumstance where one person's right to life is deemed to trump another person's bodily autonomy. That's the special exception they want to claim to justify banning abortions, but there's literally no precedent whatsoever for doing so, in any other circumstance. That's the core of this entire issue; they want this special exception, and all the rest of this is just fumbling in the dark because they don't have any actual argument to justify this position that isn't based on misogyny and/or religious dogma.