Saturday, July 23, 2022

Second Amendment Sanctuaries: Please Consider the Deadly Assault Weapon MCX-SPEAR


The MCX-SPEAR, the civilian version of the US Army’s new NGSW-R (Next Generation Squad Weapon-Rifle)

A gun company is marketing an assault rifle that can shoot through bulletproof vests to civilians, a report says, amid ongoing debates about gun control following a string of deadly mass shootings.

SIG Sauer's MCX-SPEAR is the civilian equivalent of the US Army's NGSW-R (Next Generation Squad Weapon-Rifle), specifically created to tear through body armor, The Daily Beast reported.

"'It'll shoot through almost all of the bulletproof vests worn by law enforcement in the county right now,' Ryan Busse, a former firearms company executive now a senior policy analyst with the Giffords Law Center, told the outlet.

(Alia Shoaib. “New assault rifle being sold to civilians is twice as powerful as the AR-15 and capable of shooting through bulletproof vests, report says.” Business Insider. July 23, 2022.)

War-Fighting Weapon

Of course, making this gun commercially available raises questions about the possible outcomes if it were to get into the hands of a mass shooter. SIG Sauer's MCX-SPEAR can fire bullets with twice the kinetic energy of an AR-15, The Daily Beast reported. The gun fires bullets with a longer range, and it has a noise suppressor that could make a gunman harder to locate, the outlet reported.

Sig Sauer rifles were displayed during the NRA Annual Meeting & Exhibits at the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center on May 5, 2018, in Dallas, Texas.

"The MCX-SPEAR was developed with direct input from US warfighters to provide more power, distance, and accuracy to replace the current M4 rifle platform," the company's website says.

This is a weapon that could defeat any body armor, any planned body armor that we know of in the future,” then-Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley told the Army Times in 2019. “This is a weapon that can go out at ranges that are unknown today.”

Milley had in mind the body armor worn by Russian and Chinese troops. The Army just shrugged when asked this week whether the same could apply to that worn by cops.

Please, refer your question to Sig Sauer and civilian law enforcement agencies,” a spokesperson for the Army Modernization Team told The Daily Beast.

(Michael Daly. “‘Proud’ Gunmaker Figures Out How to Make Mass Shootings Worse.” The Daily Beast. July 20, 2022.)

Marketing

The company said that the MCX-SPEAR would be available at "select dealers," Firearm Blog first reported in January. In the press release, Ron Cohen, President & CEO, SIG SAUER, Inc, said it was "a rare opportunity for passionate consumers to own a piece of history.

One of the dealers said that the arms manufacturer sent out 2,500 and 5,000 of the weapons and they sold out quickly, despite the hefty manufacturer's suggested price tag of $7,999, The Daily Beast reported.

A customer service representative for SIG Sauer told the outlet that more weapons would soon be shipped to gun stores at a lower price than the "first editions" models.

"I know it's coming," the representative told the outlet. "We're trying to get these things out as fast as we can. Get as many guns as we can out the door."

(Alia Shoaib. “New assault rifle being sold to civilians is twice as powerful as the AR-15 and capable of shooting through bulletproof vests, report says.” Business Insider. July 23, 2022.)

Conclusion

Civilians and firearms created with the specific purpose of tearing through body armor? My God, what have we become? I'm sure every gun-worshiping Billy Badass will drool over this weapon. SIG Sauer's marketing to civilians is just insane. It features either military guys or special forces officers touting the weapon. The plan is clear: forget basic training, just buy the gun military special operators use.

I know gun-lovers and Second Amendment Sanctuary supporters are going to give many reasons for civilians buying and owning and … using … such a deadly military firearm. However, I am sick and tired of the reckless abandon of gun companies, gun lobbies, and politicians who ignore gun violence perpetuated by these weapons of mass destruction.

Our own Scioto County commissioner Bryan Davis recently stated in the Facebook video of the July 7, 2022 commissioners meeting …

And what we need to do is make sure that if there is an armed assailant out there and he has a gun, you know what, it's all right to have one that's bigger than what he's got. And, you know what? It goes back to the founding of our country. The Founding Fathers showed great wisdom in the fact that the right to bears arms shall not be infringed. And that means no way, no how.”

Well, I say “how.” We must address gun violence and stop madmen from accessing assault weapons like the MCX-SPEAR. Our officials who oppose all reform should understand the real consequences of their support of “no infringement.” Ohio has currently loosened gun restrictions and firearm training. Its new commitment to “stand your ground” legislation now opens the door to terrible judgments by those with overly aggressive behaviors and mental illness.

Put this weapon in the hands of the public? Why? I see no reason for such greedy marketing behavior or for directly creating the desire for more death and destruction. 

 



Friday, July 22, 2022

Ohio GOP: Abortion Ban Allows Rape Into Motherhood


Ohio's new abortion law does not have an exemption for pregnant children or mental impairment.

The USA TODAY Network Ohio Bureau reported, Ohio's Republican lawmakers who control the state have no plans to change that.

There is much debate among doctors, lawyers, and lawmakers about which circumstances an abortion could be administrated if the pregnancy presented "a serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function" or death of the pregnant person.

(Amelia Robinson. “Ohio girls are raped into motherhood. After rape at OSU, she was nearly one.” The Columbus Dispatch. July 21, 2022.)

The new abortion law took effect despite public sentiment for legal abortions.

In May 2022, Pew Research found, overall, a clear majority of adults say abortion should be legal if the pregnancy threatens the woman’s life or health (73%) or if the pregnancy is the result of rape (69%). A smaller majority says abortion should be legal if the baby is likely to be born with severe disabilities or health issues (53%).

Democrats’ attitudes about these circumstances follow a similar pattern. At least eight-in-ten say abortion should be legal if the pregnancy threatens the woman’s life or health (84%) or the pregnancy is the result of rape (83%). A slightly smaller majority says the same about abortion if the baby is likely to be born with severe disabilities (68%).

Republicans are more divided on these questions: While a clear majority say abortion should be legal if a woman’s life is endangered (62%), a slightly smaller share say the same about a pregnancy that is the result of rape (56%). Republicans are far more divided on abortion if the baby is likely to be born with disabilities or health problems: 38% say abortion should be legal in this circumstance, while 29% say it should be illegal and 31% say it depends.

(“America’s Abortion Quandary.” Pew Research Center. May 6, 2022.)

A poll by USA TODAY Network Ohio/Suffolk University in late May found about 53% of Ohioans polled by said they wanted to protect abortion rights here. Another 39% wanted the Ohio Legislature to restrict access to the procedure. The margin of error was plus or minus 4.4 percentage points.

The partisan divide was stark: 85% of Democrats backed abortion rights compared to 21% of Republicans.

(Greg Gatlin. “Poll Shows Ohio Voters Want Abortion Rights Protected.” https://www.suffolk.edu/news-features/news/2022/06/06/15/41/suffolk-poll-shows-ohio-voters-want-abortion-rights-protected. Suffolk University/Cincinnati Enquirer. June 05, 2022.)


 

Brief History

In late June 2022, after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that legalized abortions nationwide, Ohio outlawed abortions for people who have been pregnant for six weeks or longer. Soon after, in July, several news outlets reported that Ohio’s law forced a 10-year-old girl who had gotten pregnant by rape to travel to the neighboring state of Indiana to legally terminate the pregnancy.

Many people, including politicians and members of the media, questioned the veracity of the story. About a week after the story went viral, a 27-year-old man was jailed and charged with raping the girl, according to reputable news outlets.

As news of that arrest circulated online, a rumor surfaced claiming that Ohio’s abortion law would have actually allowed the girl to legally terminate the pregnancy in that state – in other words, she supposedly could have avoided the trip to Indiana for an abortion. For instance, Glenn Greenwald, a journalist and lawyer, stated in a tweet thread, “Ohio has a rape exception in its law…”

As news of that arrest circulated online, a rumor surfaced claiming that Ohio’s abortion law would have actually allowed the girl to legally terminate the pregnancy in that state — in other words, she supposedly could have avoided the trip to Indiana for an abortion. For instance, Glenn Greenwald, a journalist and lawyer, stated in a tweet thread, “Ohio has a rape exception in its law…”

Glenn Greenwald

@ggreenwald

An ICE official told Fox the arrested suspect is a Guatemalan immigrant in the US illegally, likely shifting the focus of the story. Also, Ohio has a rape exception in its law so that part is still unclear.

But that was not the case. Ohio’s law banning abortions for people who have been pregnant for six weeks or longer did not make an exception for rape victims, as of July 2022.

(Nur Ibrahim. “Does Ohio’s Abortion Ban Have a Rape Exception?” https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ohio-abortion-law-no-rape-exception/. July 18, 2022.)

No Exceptions – Judging Morality With Politics

Recent Ohio legislation banning abortion falls clearly along political lines. The GOP defends a legal regime that they helped to craft.

Slate Senior Writer Mark Joseph Stern explains …

By the time it shook out that the GOP is the anti-abortion party – which was not fully clear until 1980 – you still have Republican politicians saying they’re for the rape and incest exception. That continues from Ronald Reagan through Donald Trump. If you ask Republican politicians whether they support a nationwide ban, the answer is always yes, but with a rape exception …

Then, some groups like Ohio Right to Life claimed that the abortion 'only added to the pain and violence perpetuated against a victim.' This idea is relatively new …

The movement started focusing on the idea that abortion hurt women more in the ’90s. Early on, in the ’60s, there was lots of other victim-blaming. Lots of anti-abortion thinkers would say: Well, women are going to just cry rape. Women are going to have consensual sex, get pregnant, and invoke a rape exception. Henry Hyde [author of the amendment limiting federal funding of abortion] famously complained that if women claim rape, no other accountability is asked of them. They don’t have to prove it. So there is a distrust of women that runs through a lot of this. And also a sense that if there’s a contrast between a fetus and a woman as to who’s more innocent and more deserving, it’s always going to be the fetus.

Then there was this conviction, based on an argument going back to the 19th century, that people couldn’t get pregnant unless the sex was consensual. They would say that was true even of incest. So as soon as the new anti-abortion movement exists, there’s very strong opposition to rape and incest exceptions. Support for these exceptions was a strategic development that came later.”

(Mark Joseph Stern. “The Real Reason Why the GOP Is Rushing to Pass Abortion Bans Without Exceptions for Rape.” https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/07/10-year-old-girl-rape-ohio-abortion-incest-life-exceptions.html. Slate. July 19, 2022.)

After Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed to the Supreme Court in 2018, you see this explosion of laws without rape or incest exceptions. At the time, this felt quite sudden to a lot of people. This generation of laws – the so-called “heartbeat bills” – ban abortion at six weeks, and most did not have rape or incest exceptions. Stern says, “I think that’s a direct response to the changing of the Supreme Court. Previously, Republican legislators had a sense that pushing too hard on unpopular things like abolishing rape or incest exceptions could make it harder to reverse Roe.”

In the face of horror stories like the 10-year-old girl rape victim in Ohio, the anti-abortion movement has doubled down. Jim Bopp, general counsel for the National Right to Life, said that the Ohio girl should have been forced to carry her rapist’s fetus, telling Politico: “She would have had the baby, and as many women who have had babies as a result of rape, we would hope that she would understand the reason and ultimately the benefit of having the child.”

Other anti-abortion groups condemned the girl’s abortion as “violence perpetuated against her.” And John Seago, the president of Texas Right to Life, acknowledged that abortion bans may cause doctors to delay care for miscarriage patients until complications arise.

Stern concludes:

The GOP did change. It became much more beholden to the anti-abortion movement and much less concerned about competition because of a combination of political polarization, gerrymandering, limits on access to the vote. These are essentially one-party states. Republican politicians aren’t worried these positions will be unpopular with voters because voters wouldn’t elect Democrats anyway.”

(Mark Joseph Stern. “The Real Reason Why the GOP Is Rushing to Pass Abortion Bans Without Exceptions for Rape.” https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/07/10-year-old-girl-rape-ohio-abortion-incest-life-exceptions.html. Slate. July 19, 2022.)

Choice For Governor

In Ohio, we will have a choice. Will voters decide to make abortion the major issue in the state? Time will tell. We do know that women are sure to be a powerful voice in the election for governor.

Former Dayton Mayor Nan Whaley, now the Democratic nominee for governor, said if voters choose her over DeWine she'll seek to have abortion rights written into the Ohio Constitution.

Whaley has made this issue central to her campaign, and she said if she wins she will immediately start putting together a ballot initiative to codify Roe into the Ohio constitution.

"This legislation is further proof that Gov. DeWine and the extremists in the legislature will stop at nothing until all abortions are illegal in our state," Whaley said in a news release.

"Ohio women deserve to be able to make these choices between themselves, their families, and their doctors – without politicians like Mike DeWine inserting themselves in the process. Not only does this bill take away a woman's right to make decisions about her own body and future, but it will hurt the economic future of our state."

(Jim Gaines. “Ohio's proposed abortion ban: Chances of passage likened to previous abortion bills.” Journal-News. Hamilton, Ohio. July 13, 2022.)

the lost women

Lucille Clifton - 1936-2010

i need to know their names
those women i would have walked with
jauntily the way men go in groups
swinging their arms, and the ones
those sweating women whom i would have joined
after a hard game to chew the fat
what would we have called each other laughing
joking into our beer? where are my gangs,
my teams, my mislaid sisters?
all the women who could have known me,
where in the world are their names?

From Next: New Poems by Lucille Clifton. Copyright © 1989 by Lucille Clifton. Reprinted with permission of BOA Editions Ltd.. All rights reserved.



Sunday, July 17, 2022

Blacks And Gun Ownership: The History of White Fear

 

Guns are just about as American as apple pie. To many, especially white folks, they've represented all the highfalutin ideals enshrined in the Constitution: independence, self-reliance and the ability to live freely. For Black folks, guns often symbolize all those same things – but, as we like to say on the show, it's complicated.

Firearms have always loomed large in Black people's lives – going all the way back to the days of colonial slavery. Right from the jump, guns were tied up in America's thorny relationship with race; you can actually tell the story of how America's racial order takes shape, in part, by tracing the history of guns in the U.S. and who was allowed to own them.

(Gene Demby and Natilie Escobar. “From Negro Militias To Black Armament.” https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2020/12/22/949169826/from-negro-militias-to-black-armament. NPR. December 22, 2020.)

To this day, nothing frightens a White nationalist more than a Black man with a gun.

Am I wrong? I don't think so. And, I challenge you to prove Blacks have equal access to what many conservative Whites know as their Second Amendment rights.

Do black gun owners have equal protection under the Second Amendment? In theory, yes. The Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms. But Blacks have a complicated history with gun ownership. And, it has absolutely nothing to do with Critical Race Theory.

May the story be told.

From the beginning of European settlement, guns, and the White men wielding them, controlled indigenous peoples who resisted incursions onto their land and the enslaved peoples whose labor was essential for Southern plantations.

Gun control may have been portrayed as a measure to reduce crime, but even in its earliest forms firearms regulation has been used as a means to control specific societal groups by keeping them from possessing weapons. Gun control existed in North America even before the creation of the United States and was racially motivated in its earliest forms. The first law in the colony of Virginia that mentioned African-Americans was a 1664 act that barred free blacks from owning firearms.

Gun ownership was not free-for-all in the colonial period and in the early republic. Because of the importance of the militias to public safety, gun registration was mandatory and government officials had the right to come into your home to inspect your musket. The government had opinions as to which weapons you should buy and even as to how you should keep your weapon – mandating, for example, that gunpowder be stored in a safe manner.

The men who enrolled in militias in the early days of the nation – and, under the 1792 Militia Act, enrollment was mandatory for all able-bodied free White men between the ages of 18 and 45 – had six months to buy themselves “a musket, bayonet, and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack.”

(Rebecca Onion. “Automatic for the People.” https://www.topic.com/automatic-for-the-people. July 2018.)

Before the Civil War, enslaved people could own guns with the approval of their masters, and freedmen in some states could get approval from local officials to carry weapons. But, following Nat Turner's slave rebellion, lawmakers began to curtail the gun-ownership rights of Blacks.

And, even though Black soldiers took up arms for the Union army and Congress passed a bill which gave Black soldiers returning from the battlefield the right to keep their weapons, lawmakers from places like Mississippi and Florida refused to accept this and passed Black Codes which restricted freedmen from owning guns or other weapons. Hordes of white vigilantes actually raided Black homes to confiscate them.

Some Southern Blacks continued to own firearms. During Reconstruction, guns became important symbols of freedom for ex-slaves. Observers throughout the post-war South noted how eager freedpeople were to procure “pistols, old muskets, and shot-guns” in preparation for self-defense, as possessing a gun sent a clear signal that its owner would not be intimidated.

Anecdotal evidence also suggests that from time to time, armed freepeople successfully repelled Klan attacks on their homes. However, they were often outgunned by these racists.

In addition, states would not protect Blacks from White violence. In came Jim Crow laws and and the continued oppression of African Americans.

Segregation measures continued into the 20th century with laws being disproportionately enforced against Black Americans. Meanwhile as the KKK continued to gain followers and terrorize Blacks in the South, many politicians turned a blind eye.

Gun control measures expanded in 1938 making it necessary to have a license to own firearms. The government could then grant or deny gun permits to applicants on the basis of suitability.

In 1966, members of the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense was founded in California. Members began openly carrying weapons in protest of police violence and in support of Black people's right to bear arms.

On May 2, 1967, members of the Black Panther Party congregated at the California State Capitol building carrying guns. They protested police brutality and the proposal of the Mulford Bill, a strict gun-control measure to to ban open carry of loaded weapons in the state. Panther leaders Bobby Seale and Huey Newton argued that the law was intended to disarm Black Californians.

Despite the protests, the bill was signed into law by Governor Ronald Reagan and supported by the National Rifle Association. Black Panther Party members were arrested for disturbing the peace.

"Anyone who would approve of this kind of demonstration must be out of their minds," Reagan said.

(Manisha Claire. “The Unequal History of African American Gun Rights.” https://www.topic.com/carrying-while-black. 2022.)

The law was part of a wave of laws that were passed in the late 1960s regulating guns, especially to target African-Americans,” says Adam Winkler, author of Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms (2013).

Racial History Continues

Since the election of Donald Trump, guns sales to Black Americans have quadrupled, and black gun groups, such as the National African American Gun Association, report that attendance at their meetings has doubled.

Is it any wonder that racial minorities are seeking ways to protect themselves, with Trump having emboldened hate groups who see him as their long-awaited leader and with incidents of racial harassment and violence having escalated after his election.

And now, the latest Supreme Court ruling guarantee’s the Second Amendment right of people to carry their firearms in public space for “self-defense,” according to the Los Angeles Times. These new gun laws were advocated for because white people grew concerned about their gun rights. And, who is even more concerned than them? Black gun owners.

Consider Amir Locke, Philando Castile, Atatiana Jefferson – the list of Black licensed gun owners killed by police for having a gun keeps growing. Kelly Sampson from gun safety organization Brady told NPR this is precisely why Black people feel left out from their constitutional protection.

Then there's the perception of a black person carrying a gun. Tamir Rice, John Crawford and Robert Dentmond were all shot and killed by police because they were seen with objects that looked like real firearms.

We live in a society that codes Black people in general as criminal but especially when we carry arms,” Sampson said. “So when you strip away all of the rhetoric around the Second Amendment, you still can’t get away from the fundamental issue that we live in a country where Black people are disproportionately dying from gun homicides, and Black people also are disproportionately impacted by police violence.”

Historically, the government worked to keep guns away from Black people or apply gun control laws specifically to us. Jabir Asa, minister of social media for the Cleveland chapter of the Huey P. Newton Gun Club, told NPR the court’s decision is a way to address the disparity.

Take California’s Mulford Act of 1967 for example. The National Rifle Association even backed it, though the bill prohibited the open carry of loaded weapons, a move directed toward the Black Panther Party.

We have already seen historically that when you go on any kind of gun-grabbing campaign, the only people with guns are the kind of people who would never worry about the legality of having them in the first place. And then you find yourself in a position where you’re vulnerable to fascists,” said Asa, via NPR.

(Kalyn Womack. “Black Gun Owners React to Supreme Court’s Concealed Carry Decision https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/black-gun-owners-react-supreme-122545424.html. July 16, 2022.)

White Men And Guns

Since the 2008 election of President Obama, the number of firearms manufactured in the U.S. has tripled, while imports have doubled. This doesn’t mean more households have guns than ever before—that percentage has stayed fairly steady for decades. Rather, more guns are being stockpiled by a small number of individuals. Three percent of the population now owns half of the country’s firearms, says a recent, definitive study from the Injury Control Research Center at Harvard University.

The findings include:

  • An estimated 55 million Americans own guns.

  • The percentage of the U.S. population who own guns decreased slightly from 25% in 1994 to 22% last year.

  • Between 300,000 and 600,000 guns are stolen each year.

  • Gun owners tend to be white, male, conservative, and live in rural areas.

  • 25% of gun owners in America are white or multi-racial, compared with 16% of Hispanics and 14% of African Americans.

  • There are an estimated 111 million handguns nationwide, a 71% increase from the 65 million handguns in 1994.

(Hepburn, Lisa; Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. “The US gun stock: Results from the 2004 national firearms survey.” Injury Prevention. 2007; 13:15-19.)

So, who is buying all these guns – and why?

The short answer to the first part of that question is this: men, who on average possess almost twice the number of guns female owners do. But not all men. Some groups of men are much more avid gun consumers than others. The American citizen most likely to own a gun is a white male – but not just any white guy. According to a growing number of scientific studies, the kind of man who stockpiles weapons or applies for a concealed-carry license meets a very specific profile.

The profile:

These are men who are anxious about their ability to protect their families, insecure about their place in the job market, and beset by racial fears. They tend to be less educated.

For the most part, they don’t appear to be religious – and, suggests one study, faith seems to reduce their attachment to guns. In fact, stockpiling guns seems to be a symptom of a much deeper crisis in meaning and purpose in their lives. Taken together, these studies describe a population that is struggling to find a new story – one in which they are once again the heroes.

When Northland College sociologist Angela Stroud studied applications for licenses to carry concealed firearms in Texas, she found that when men became fathers or got married, they started to feel very vulnerable, like they couldn’t protect families. She said,“For them, owning a weapon is part of what it means to be a good husband and a good father.” That meaning is “rooted in fear and vulnerability – very motivating emotions.”

But Stroud also discovered another motivation: racial anxiety. “A lot of people talked about how important Obama was to get a concealed-carry license: ‘He’s for free health care, he’s for welfare.’ They were asking, ‘Whatever happened to hard work?’” Obama’s presidency, they feared, would empower minorities to threaten their property and families.

Jeremy Adam Smith, editor of Greater Good and John S. Knight journalism fellow at Stanford University, reports …

The insight Stroud gained from her interviews is backed up by many, many studies. A 2013 paper by a team of United Kingdom researchers found that a one-point jump in the scale they used to measure racism increased the odds of owning a gun by 50 percent. A 2016 study from the University of Illinois at Chicago found that racial resentment among whites fueled opposition to gun control. This drives political affiliations: A 2017 study in the Social Studies Quarterly found that gun owners had become 50 percent more likely to vote Republican since 1972 – and that gun culture had become strongly associated with explicit racism.

For many conservative men, the gun feels like a force for order in a chaotic world, suggests a study published in December of last year. In a series of three experiments, Steven Shepherd and Aaron C. Kay asked hundreds of liberals and conservatives to imagine holding a handgun – and found that conservatives felt less risk and greater personal control than liberal counterparts.

This wasn’t about familiarity with real-world guns – gun ownership and experience did not affect results. Instead, conservative attachment to guns was based entirely on ideology and emotions.”

(Jeremy Adam Smith. “Why Are White Men Stockpiling Guns?” https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/why-are-white-men-stockpiling-guns/. Scientific American. March 14, 2018.)

Smith continues …

That’s an insight echoed by another study published last year. Baylor University sociologists Paul Froese and F. Carson Mencken created a 'gun empowerment scale' designed to measure how a nationally representative sample of almost 600 owners felt about their weapons. Their study found that people at the highest level of their scale – the ones who felt most emotionally and morally attached to their guns – were 78 percent white and 65 percent male.

'We found that white men who have experienced economic setbacks or worry about their economic futures are the group of owners most attached to their guns,' says Froese. 'Those with high attachment felt that having a gun made them a better and more respected member of their communities.'

That wasn’t true for women and non-whites. In other words, they may have suffered setbacks – but women and people of color weren’t turning to guns to make themselves feel better. 'This suggests that these owners have other sources of meaning and coping when facing hard times,' notes Froese – often, religion. Indeed, Froese and Mencken found that religious faith seemed to put the brakes on white men’s attachment to guns.

For these economically insecure, irreligious white men, 'the gun is a ubiquitous symbol of power and independence, two things white males are worried about,' says Froese. 'Guns, therefore, provide a way to regain their masculinity, which they perceive has been eroded by increasing economic impotency.'

Unfortunately, the people most likely to be killed by the guns of white men aren’t the 'bad guys,' presumably criminals or terrorists. It’s themselves – and their families.

(Jeremy Adam Smith. “Why Are White Men Stockpiling Guns?” https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/why-are-white-men-stockpiling-guns/. Scientific American. March 14, 2018.)

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, White men are also the people most likely to hurt themselves especially when they’re in some kind of economic distress. A white man is three times more likely to shoot himself than a black man – while the chances that a white man will be killed by a black man are extremely slight. Most murders and shoot-outs don’t happen between strangers. They unfold within social networks, among people of the same race.

Smith writes: “In addition, a gun in the home is far more likely to kill or wound the people who live there than is a burglar or serial killer. Most of the time, according to every single study that’s ever been done about interpersonal gun violence, the dead and wounded know the people who shot them. A gun in the home makes it five times more likely that a woman will be killed by her husband.”

Every week in America, 136 children and teenagers are shot—and more often than not, it’s a sibling, friend, parent, or relative who holds the gun. For every homicide deemed justified by the police, guns are used in 78 suicides. A study published in 2018 in JAMA Internal Medicine once again shows that restrictive gun laws don’t prevent white men from defending themselves and their families. Instead, those laws stop them from shooting themselves and each other.

Please, read Jeremy Adam Smith's entire article by clicking here: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/why-are-white-men-stockpiling-guns/.

Conclusion

Since the days of early settlement of America, the propagation of the myth of the predatory Black man has been used to instill fear in whites and to justify their brutality and violence against Black individuals and communities The narrative has been passed down from one generation to the next and is still used to underwrite injustice against Black people.

White America has long associated black men with criminality and hypersexuality. The ghost of Nat Turner and his slave rebellion still haunts Whites today. It's why some social science experiments show that even trained police officers are biased to see black man as threats.

This fear of black men doesn’t just spring from racism. It’s also psychological. There is a body of work in literature and psychology that speaks to a historical tradition where some White people – White men, in particular – project the primal aggression that they refuse to see in themselves onto black people.

This is what author James Baldwin meant when he wrote in a 1962 essay that the racial tensions menacing America “are involved only symbolically with color.”

These tensions are rooted in the very same depths as those from which love springs, or murder,” Baldwin wrote. “The white man’s unadmitted – and apparently, to him, unspeakable – private fears and longings are projected onto the Negro.”

(John Blake. “There’s one epidemic we may never find a vaccine for: fear of black men in public spaces.” CNN. May 27, 2020.)

And, let's face it – much of America remains segregated. Until something changes, Black men must learn to live with the fearful white gaze. Blacks with equal gun possession? Now, if you want to talk about “White fear” – just read the following:

The Afro-American militant is a 'militant' because he defends himself, his family, his home, and his dignity. He does not introduce violence into a racist social system - the violence is already there, and has always been there.

It is precisely this unchallenged violence that allows a racist social system to perpetuate itself. When people say that they are opposed to Negroes 'resorting to violence' what they really mean is that they are opposed to Negroes defending themselves and challenging the exclusive monopoly of violence practiced by white racists.”

(Robert F. Williams. Negroes with Guns. 1962)

White fear has manifested itself in outright violence post-slavery through the imposition of Jim Crow segregation. White fear has manifested itself legislatively via redlining laws and cruel lending practices barring blacks from owning property in ‘white neighborhoods.’

White fear has manifested itself in so many structural ways that it has become part and parcel with the fundamental functions of every private and governmental institution in this country …

White fear is killing us …

It is criminalizing black bodies. It is incarcerating black identities. It is limiting black potential …

And, it is shooting black boys in the streets of their own neighborhoods. White fear is the single greatest cause of death for black people today and has been so since this country’s inception.”

(Jenn M. Jackson. “White Fear: The Single Greatest Killer of Black People in the US.” Water Cooler Convos. 2014. Accessed April 19, 2015.)

 


Saturday, July 16, 2022

Scioto Commissioners Reaffirm "Second Amendment Sanctuary" How About Ross?

Sheriff Candidate David Thoroughman was the only citizen present to address Commissioners in regards to the proposed 2A resolution. (Portsmouth Daily Times. January 16, 2020)

When we become an elected official we take an oath to uphold the law, so any suggestion that we do not follow any laws, whether they’re laws we like or dislike, it’s problematic to me,” said the man who controls the county’s checkbook. “I have an issue with the County Commissioners making a statement that they’re not going to follow certain laws. “

Ross County Ohio Auditor Tom Spetnagel (“Ross County shoots down Second Amendment Sanctuary.” The Guardian. March 12, 2020.)

I asked the following question of the Scioto County commissioners during their July 14, 2022 meeting: “Any news on rescinding the Second Amendment Sanctuary? Do you still feel red flag laws are worthless?”

My question was a followup to the commissioners' comments during their previous meeting when I asked about the possibility of rescinding the designation. Commisioner Bryan Davis said then that red flag laws do not work and that he still strongly supported the Scioto Second Amendment Sanctuary. Commissioner Scottie Powell echoed Davis's beliefs.

The July 14 Meeting

Commissioner Scottie Powell: I think we covered this during our last meeting. Nothing's changed since then. I would encourage you to reach out to your state legislators. They have the ability to change the laws in the way you would hope to see them move. We don't create the laws here in this room. So, I would encourage you to reach out to Representative Baldridge or Senator Johnson or the governor's office if you would like to see something change in terms of how the gun laws are handled in the State of Ohio.

Commissioner Bryan Davis: I'll add to that. If we were to vote to rescind our Second Amendment Sanctuary in the county, I would vote “no” to rescind. I don't know if that is something we would like to visit at a later meeting ... My opinion on red flag laws has not changed. It's a matter of the heart. It's a matter of mental health ... The carnage that's being caused is by individuals that are mentally ill, do need mental health services, and/or are just evil people ... At the core of it all is sin. Period ... When there are politicians making comments on national news to get in people's faces to stand and fight and to do things like that, causing hysteria, causing people who are just waiting for marching orders to do some of the things that they're doing, that's part of the problem. Everybody needs to see it for what it truly is, quit blaming the inanimate object ... for what an animate object, being a person with ill intent is causing. I'll leave it at that.

Powell: To insure there is no question on where this board stands, would you like to make a motion on not rescinding it (Second Amendment Sanctuary)?

Davis: Sure. I'll make that motion. I would rather to vote to reaffirm. I would make a motion to reaffirm our stance as a Second Amendment Sanctuary county.

Commissioner Cathy Coleman: I'll second.

All three commissioners voted in favor.

Powell: So now there is no questions. We know where we currently stand, Frank. By all means contact some other representatives regarding your concerns.

Ross County, 2020

You may be interested in what happened when Ross County commissioners attempted to pass a Second Amendment Sanctuary designation.

When the Ross County Commissioners shot down a resolution in March 2020 that would turn the county into a self-described sanctuary county, the sole-Republican commissioner, Dwight Garrett made the motion in a packed room of supporters and opponents. After doing so, neither one of the democratic commissioners, Steve Neal, Sr., or Doug Corcoran would second the motion.

Corcoran told the crowd that the reason he would not support the measure is because county commissioners are not law makers. He said even if they passed such an opinionated-measure, the state could overturn it. He added, however, that he supports the Second Amendment.

Passing a measure does not “protect” or change the law. Had the legislation passed, the resolution does nothing more but state an opinion by three men.

Another group, Moms Demand Action, which is a local chapter of a national organization, opposed the passage. Many of their supporters wore shirts and said that they desire “common sense” gun reform.

As previously reported by the Guardian, the county held meetings to consider the measures. Those meetings, like the one on Monday, were filled with passionate opinions.

Retired teacher Kathleen Burgess pointed out that some regulation is good for the betterment of society’s overall safety.

In order to vote, citizens must prove our age and residence. In order to drive a car, we must prove age, residence, and demonstrate an understanding of traffic laws and driving competencies,” she told the three commissioners. “We have freedom of speech, but we cannot legally threaten others with harm or shout fire in a crowded theater. Likewise, the Second Amendment requires sensible regulation in order to preserve our right to life. It would be irresponsible to declare we are not bound by laws of this state and nation….Ross County officials must continue to foster respect for law and order….do not endorse that we believe we are above the law.”

(Staff. “Ross County shoots down Second Amendment Sanctuary.” https://sciotovalleyguardian.com/2020/03/02/ross-county-shoots-down-second-amendment-sanctuary/. The Guardian. March 12, 2020.)

My Take

First of all, the Scioto commissioners – all Republicans – assume they speak for the citizens of the county about what is clearly a political issue. Commissioner Davis even calls it their “stance” on legislation to fight gun violence. No public meeting in Scioto was scheduled to address the matter of the designation … ever. Since their declaration in 2020 and now in 2022, the commissioners have taken it upon themselves to issue the sanctuary decree on behalf of the people in the county.

Second, what exactly is the Second Amendment Sanctuary as it relates to the county? I have never seen the actual designation. A broad statement was issued by the commissioners and now reaffirmed, but what does it actually say? No one knows. What does it attempt to do? 

They claim the designation has no legal authority and is not law, yet such a defiant political statement should be clearly issued, debated, and understood before passage and affirmation. This rush to judgment was spurred by fears of Gov. DeWine's proposed reforms. Tell me it's not political, and I fear you may have a bridge across the Ohio into South Shore you are interested in selling.

One thing we do know is that Davis has strong beliefs about “politicians getting in people's faces” and “doing things that cause hysteria.” I cannot help but wonder what politicians he refers to who are giving others “marching orders”? The only such orders I am aware of were given by Trump to take the Capitol on January 6.

I wonder what Davis believes are the “marching orders to do some of the things that they're doing.” How does he see this “hysteria”? What politicians cause what hysteria? He clearly states the “inanimate object, the gun, has nothing to do with the epidemic of gun violence in the United States. He blames it all on evil and sin. This is a broad statement that I assume he believes includes all deaths and destruction resulting from a firearm, including suicides, homicides, and accidents.

Finally, Commissioner Powell wants me to take my concerns for their actions to “other representatives.” The Scioto commissioners chose to pass this designation, and that is my chief concern as a lifelong citizen of the county. Why pass the buck and why brazenly reaffirm their sanctuary only to deny any responsibility for its sacred place in Scioto County? They say they support all amendments to the Constitution, yet they choose to pass opinion on the hotly debated issue of gun measures.

The hypocrisy is evident: the commissioners want to make policy statements that reflect their personal, political stances as officials who were supposedly elected to control budgets; approve zoning; approve annexations to cities and villages; and set overall commissioning policy. How can three such officials overstep and use their offices to influence matters such as their stance to underscore resistance to much-needed reform? I believe I know -- because in total control, they enjoy power without question or without significant checks and balances of their party views.

Even though many people in Ross County believed a need for the sanctuary proposal was a way to protect their right to bear arms, those opposed to the resolution responded to accusations from some pro-gun speakers claiming that they are unAmerican, socialists, or against the Constitution. The opponents also took the time to elaborate on the role of the commissioners as a local body rather than a state entity.

"I am a person for the law," said League of Women Voters President Bart Henshaw. "Those of us who are opposed to this do not come here with threats. We came here to ask you to do what's right."

(Toria Barnhart. “Ross County drops 2nd Amendment sanctuary plan.” Chillicothe Gazette. USA TODAY NETWORK. March 03, 2020.)

I close by asking which county is more responsive to its citizens and is more concerned about the real message that a Second Amendment Sanctuary designation sends. Scioto or Ross? Also, which county accepts ownership of its message and does not tell those opposed to look elsewhere for redress? What buck? Where does it stop? I think you know. 


Friday, July 15, 2022

Ohio Attorney General Yost: Doubts 10-Year-Old Is Victim of Rape

 

                                                Dave Yost, 51st Attorney General Ohio

There are few things viler and more sensitive than a criminal investigation involving a child rape victim.

Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost appeared on Fox News this week, casting doubt on the veracity of Dr. Caitlin Bernard's account that a 10-year-old Ohio rape victim needed to travel to Indiana for an abortion.

Yost, a Republican, doubled down on that in an interview with the USA TODAY Network Ohio bureau on Tuesday.

"Every day that goes by the more likely that this is a fabrication. I know the cops and prosecutors in this state. There's not one of them that wouldn't be turning over every rock, looking for this guy and they would have charged him," he said. "I'm not saying it could not have happened. What I'm saying to you is there is not a damn scintilla of evidence. And shame on the Indianapolis paper that ran this thing on a single source who has an obvious axe to grind.""

After news broke Wednesday of an arrest in the case, Yost issued a single sentence statement: "We rejoice anytime a child rapist is taken off the streets."

Yost is endorsed by the Ohio Right to Life PAC.

(Laura A. Bischoff. “Ohio AG Dave Yost cast doubt on 10-year-old rape victim case, now 'rejoices' at arrest.” The Columbus Dispatch. July 13, 2022.)

Amelia Robinson of the Columbus Dispatch says, “One can only speculate why Yost – armed with clearly inaccurate information – jumped in the mud with political hacks, fame-seeking trolls and Fox "news" fakers casting doubt on a case that has always been in the regime of possibility.”

"We warned legislators that this would happen. Anti-choice legislators proceeded with all of these bans anyway," Kellie Copeland, executive director of Pro-Choice Ohio, said during a recent Dispatch Columbus Conversation Robinson hosted on the future of abortion there. "This is the agenda that they passed and these are the results of that agenda."

(Amelia Robinson. “Shameful Dave Yost jumped in mud to doubt case of 10-year-old who got abortion.” The Columbus Dispatch. July 14, 2022.)

A Columbus Dispatch analysis of Columbus police reports alone found 50 reports of rape or sexual abuse involving girls age 15 years or younger since May 9.

There were another 16 involving boys.

According to the Ohio Department of Health, 52 children under the age of 15 received abortions in Ohio in 2020. That's on top of the 469 people ages 15 to 17 who had abortions.

This is down from the 1,682 abortions provided to Ohio minors in 2010.

Robinson reports …

Sexual violence is among the attorney general's stated areas of concern.

"'Standing up for victims of human trafficking' and 'solving cold-case homicides and sexual assaults' are among the things touted as major focuses on his biography page on the Ohio Attorney General's Office's official website.

Yost – a former Columbus Citizen Journal reporter – undoubtedly knows some of the girls who are sexually abused became pregnant and some of those girls have abortions.

He also must know thousands of Ohio girls are sexually violated each year. Many go unreported …

There is nothing wrong with questioning the media – it is to be expected – but have your facts right before you do – particularly if you are Ohio's top prosecutor and know intimately how complex and vile child sex abuse cases are.

Dave Yost should be above backstroking in the sickening layer of mud far too many willingly create.

You don't have to be a prosecutor or detective to expect as much.”

(Amelia Robinson. “Shameful Dave Yost jumped in mud to doubt case of 10-year-old who got abortion.” The Columbus Dispatch. July 14, 2022.)

Conclusion

As the so-called “heartbeat law” became law in Ohio after Roe v. Wade was overturned, Gerson Fuentes, a 27-year-old from Columbus, was charged with raping the 10-year-old. Police say he confessed to attacking the little girl on at least two occasions.

Police learned of the girl's pregnancy through a referral June 22. She underwent a medical abortion in Indianapolis June 30.

Dave Yost is the Attorney General of Ohio. He should stay informed of such terrible acts of violent crime and defend victims, especially those too young to fight injustice. The issue of abortion is so sensitive, yet Yost took it upon himself to allow his own personal and political views to dictate his intrusive actions. In doing so, he betrayed his office, and, in this case, served to spread falsehoods about the reality of rape and child abuse in the State of Ohio.

Shame on Dave Yost, indeed. In their culture war, the Ohio GOP is passing legislation that oppresses women and obliterates their right to choose. In doing so, Republicans ignore circumstances such as these – despicable, real-life crimes against children.

Ohio outlawed abortion just weeks after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. And, meanwhile, physicians in neighboring Indiana described an influx of out-of-state patients seeking care. Among them: this pregnant 10-year-old.

Dr. Caitlin Bernard, an Indianapolis obstetrician-gynecologist, told the Indianapolis Star that just three days after the federal right to an abortion was reversed she received a call from a colleague, a child abuse doctor in Ohio, who needed her help.

The physician had a pregnant patient – a 10-year-old who got pregnant after getting raped – who could no longer legally undergo the procedure in her home state. The girl was six weeks and three days pregnant when Dr. Bernard was contacted, the Indianapolis Star, reported.

In God's name, what political force demands such an innocent victim must carry that fetus to term? And, where is the concern for the young girl when the state attorney general uses his platform to further his party's beliefs about abortion, raises doubts about the crime, and eventually discovers his grievous error?

Then, he merely issues this statement: "We rejoice anytime a child rapist is taken off the streets”? The response is both hypocritical and a further example of denial of his culpability in spreading sickening, dangerous lies. Fox News, Ohio GOP – this is politics at their worst: compassion is totally lacking and it's full-speed ahead in the continuing efforts to destroy women's rights.

Michael Daly, special correspondent with The Daily Beast, staff writer with New York magazine, and finalist for the Pulitzer Prize for commentary in 2002, says …

Neither Yost nor the various right-wing pundits and politicians who joined him in suggesting the crime never happened offered an apology for having further victimized the family of a 10-year-old who had been impregnated while being repeatedly raped. They also expressed no regrets for having questioned the integrity of a dedicated physician who is also known for her work on reproductive health and HIV in Kenya.

Like Yost, Dr. Caitlin Bernard spoke of her heart. But she is somebody who actually has one.”

(Michael Daley. “Heartless Ohio AG’s Biggest Failure in the 10-Year-Old’s Rape Case.” https://news.yahoo.com/heartless-ohio-ag-biggest-failure-235427052.html?fr=yhssrp_catchall. July 14, 2022.)

Postscript

Still doubt Ohio GOP heartless lies and heinous reactions?

Ohio Republican Representative Jim Jordan was confronted on Thursday after he deleted a tweet in response to a report about a 10-year-old rape victim in Ohio that crossed state lines to receive an abortion.

Shortly after Yost's remarks, Jordan responded on Twitter in a since-deleted tweet that said, "Another lie. Anyone surprised?"

Following the deletion of his tweet, Jordan was confronted by CNN's Manu Raju on Thursday – July 14 – and was asked why he decided to delete it.

"Well, because we learned that this illegal alien did this heinous crime. So we deleted the tweet," Jordan said.

Raju then asked Jordan if he wanted to apologize for the tweet and in response, the Ohio Rep. said, "I never doubted the child. I was responding to a headline…doubting Joe Biden, which is usually a smart thing to do."

As Jordan mentioned in his remarks, Biden previously spoke about the incident involving the 10-year-old, and criticized the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, leaving abortion laws up to states.

(Matthew Impelli. “Jim Jordan Confronted Over 10-Year-Old-Rape-Victim Tweet.” Newsweek. July 14, 2022.)



Wednesday, July 13, 2022

New Ohio House Bill 704 -- Moving To Ban Birth Control And In Vitro Fertilization?

Ohio lawmakers introduced a bill Monday, July 11, 2022, that would effectively ban all abortions, except to save the life of a mother.

State Rep. Gary Click, R-Vickery, introduced House Bill 704 which states that Ohio must "recognize the personhood, and protect the constitutional rights, of all unborn human individuals from the moment of conception."

Click's bill, which is being co-sponsored by seven other lawmakers, could also potentially ban other forms of birth control such as certain intrauterine devices (or IUDs) that interfere with an already fertilized ova.

There are also a host of other questions raised with other medical procedures handling fertilized embryos, such as in vitro fertilizations. IVFs occur when fertilization happens in a lab, and the embryo can be later implanted into a uterus.

It's common practice for IVF labs to freeze embryos for future use or discarded and donate unused ones.

"We may be out of business because of the potential of what happens if the embryo doesn’t make it to viability," said Dr. Thomas Burwinkel, an IVF specialist from Cincinnati, to the Toledo Blade. "Will they say we caused this unborn child not to make it to the point of transfer?”

(Titus Wu. “Ohio lawmakers introduce bill banning abortion at conception unless mother's life at risk.” The Columbus Dispatch. July 12, 2022.)

The Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, and quickly GOP lawmakers in Ohio made abortion illegal if fetal cardiac activity is detected, which is around six weeks of gestation, though most people usually do not know if they are pregnant by then.

It doesn't stop there – Republican leaders who control Ohio government have signaled they would pursue a full abortion ban with exception to save the mother's life. An exception for victims of rape and incest is not expected. If that's the case, such a ban could be in effect in Ohio as early as 2023.

Other bills restricting abortion are pending in the Ohio legislature. Senate Bill 123 and House Bill 598 would be "trigger bans,” banning abortion only when Roe v. Wade is overturned. House Bill 480 would allow for lawsuits from private citizens against those committing abortion but prohibits the government from enforcing it.

(Titus Wu. “Ohio lawmakers introduce bill banning abortion at conception unless mother's life at risk.” The Columbus Dispatch. July 12, 2022.)

Doctors like Thomas Burwinkel MD work so hard to bring the joy of parenthood to hopeful parents through innovative science. Burwinkel is a board certified in Obstetrics and Gynecology, and Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility. He once served as the medical director of the in vitro fertilization (IVF) program at Kettering Medical Center in Dayton, Ohio.

Dr. Burwinkel describes his mission …

Ovation Fertility brings hope to families by applying the latest advances in reproductive science through a unique collaboration of compassionate clinicians and scientists who are driven to exceed patients' expectations of outcomes.

What stands between you and a baby? Our life’s work is dedicated to discovering the reasons and removing the obstacles that prevent conception. The research our partner physicians and scientists have published over the past 35 years explores the causes of infertility — female infertility, male infertility, combined, unknown or situational factors — and has led to breakthrough treatments that open doors to families.

Ovation® Fertility is a national network of IVF labs, genetics labs and partner physician practices committed to applying leading-edge treatment through the hands and minds of the world’s foremost experts.

Ovation is a result of an unprecedented collaboration among more than 70 of the brightest minds in reproductive medicine who share a strong common bond, having dedicated their lives to resolving infertility-related challenges. We have worked side-by-side for decades to establish U.S. industry standards and contribute to worldwide fertility research. It was only natural to forge a meaningful partnership among our peers to build one of the country’s most effective integrated healthcare delivery platforms specializing in infertility.”

(Thomas Burwinkel, MD. Ovation Fertility. 2022.)

The Sad Reality

Approximately 1 in 8 couples is affected by infertility in the United States. IVF – in vitro fertilization – has been around since the late 1970s, and it has allowed hundreds of thousands of heterosexual couples struggling to conceive, as well as same-sex couples and those who are single but want children, to build their families. According to CDC data, about 2 in every 100 children born in the United States every year are conceived through IVF.

(“National Survey of Family Growth, 2006-2010.” Centers For Disease Control)

While the main target of these bans is to restrict abortion care, fertility and legal experts say that without the protection of Roe v. Wade, state lawmakers could introduce abortion legislation that could potentially threaten access to family-building treatments such as IVF.

IVF is part of a family of fertility treatments known as assisted reproductive technology, in which eggs are retrieved from a woman’s ovaries and are combined with sperm in a laboratory. Once fertilized, some develop into embryos that can then be transferred to a woman’s uterus, where if successfully implanted, can result in a pregnancy. However, not all eggs that are retrieved always fertilize normally. This is why during a cycle of IVF, multiple embryos are typically created in order to have a pool of healthy embryos to choose from. Doctors generally implant only one or two embryos in the uterus at once.

Advocacy groups, doctors and legal experts worry that many states are looking to ban abortions starting from conception or when the egg is fertilized, without explicitly making a distinction between fertilization that occurs inside a woman’s uterus vs. in a lab, as is the case with IVF. This could by default restrict or end IVF in some states, they say.

Jody Madeira – the co-director for the Center for Law, Society & Culture at Indiana University’s law school and an expert on IVF and law – explains …

I think what we’re going to see are a lot more states who say life begins at fertilization, life begins at conception. From the moment of fertilization or conception, that particular embryo, if it doesn’t state otherwise – whether or not conceived in vivo, [meaning] inside the uterus, or ex vivo, [meaning] outside the uterus – is actually a human being. You would specifically have to exempt IVF in order to keep this procedure safe. Legally, doctors will, I think, really pull back if these clarifications are not made.”

(Laura Ramirez-Feldman. “Abortion bans could impact access to IVF after Roe v. Wade overturned, experts say.” https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/abortion-bans-could-impact-access-to-ivf-after-roe-v-wade-overturned-experts-say/ar-AAZk1z9. MSN. July 07, 2022.)

Conclusion

Taking away a woman's right to choose leads to devastating consequences. It is apparent many ultra-conservative Ohio Republicans want to ban all abortions. Their laws threaten IVF labs and their ability to help parents conceive.

Local anti-abortion groups in Illinois have taken on fertility clinics and other medical facilities over discarded or donated embryos left over from the process of in vitro fertilization.

According to a report from The Chicago Tribune, abortion opponents gathered outside a fertility clinic in Naperville in late September 2019 to fight for the future of the frozen embryos that are not used in IVF. The protest was part of the city's annual "Bike for Life" fundraiser.

Some organizations are increasingly tacking the matter as part of the reproductive rights debate. Students for Life of America, a nonprofit whose goal is to mobilize younger generations to abolish abortion, recently issued a statement on the issue of IVF. The group claimed that the medical procedure, while "life-changing for many families," wasn't "perfect."

"A consistent, intellectually-honest stance holds that human life begins at conception/fertilization, which means that destroying embryos is killing human beings at our very earliest phase," the group asserted.

The Personhood Alliance, a group of Christian pro-life organizations who will soon be launching an affiliate branch in Illinois, is also a defender of embryo rights under "equal protection of all human beings."

(Alexandra Hutzler. “Anti-Abortion Groups Take On IVF, Fertility Clinics Over Unused Embryos: 'They Are Still Alive.'” Newsweek. October 08, 2019.)

Is it just fringe groups that believe embryos have rights? This view is more established than many think. For instance, take the Catholic Church – it forbids IVF on the grounds that it's morally unacceptable. (That's also the basis for Personhood bills around the country, which grant rights to fertilized eggs.)

Catholicism takes a pretty strong stance against IVF. The church prohibits any type of conception that takes place outside of “marital union,” which rules out the use of assisted reproductive technology. Another issue is cryopreservation of embryos, which presents numerous moral conundrums for Catholics. The church views embryos as human life, so discarding or donating “leftover” embryos is strictly forbidden. Even freezing embryos for future transfer is frowned upon since not all embryos survive the thaw.

(Jen Jones Donatelli. https://helloflo.com/im-catholic-did-ivf-anyway/#:~:text=Indeed%2C%20Catholicism%20takes%20a%20pretty%20strong%20stance%20against,embryos%2C%20which%20presents%20numerous%20moral%20conundrums%20for%20Catholics.Hello Flo. September 29, 2017.)

Is anti-abortion activism driven by men's “desire to control women”?

I certainly believe some of this desire for control is undeniable. Many women desperately want to have children and seek medical help to do so. Isn't this their right? And, aren't these procedures gifts from God?

And, one thing I do understand about all of this control is also very ironic: women who undergo IVF are trying to become mothers and, many conservatives believe, fulfilling the role patriarchy wants of them. Miscarriage is usually unwanted; women who have miscarriages are likely trying to have children; they are also fulfilling their proper role under patriarchy.

Wherein lies the path for equality?

I believe we must defend an individual woman's right to choose. The pro-life movement seems to be more about making public declarations of pious conservatism than advocating for life. It is a religious movement: this explains the absence of contraception and sex education from the platform. It is also a politically conservative movement, which values small government more than the souls of unborn children and seeks to do little for them once they are born.

In the (viral) words of Sister Joan Chittister – American Benedictine nun, theologian, author, and speaker who has served as Benedictine prioress and Benedictine federation president, president of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, and co-chair of the Global Peace Initiative of Women …

I do not believe that just because you’re opposed to abortion, that that makes you pro-life. In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed. And why would I think that you don’t? Because you don’t want any tax money to go there. That’s not pro-life. That’s pro-birth. We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of pro-life is.”

(Heidi Schlumpf. “Sr. Joan Chittister's 2004 quote on 'pro-life' versus 'pro-birth' goes viral.” National Catholic Reporter. May 23, 2019.)

Anti-abortion activists are "absolutizing" the debate by "allowing no distinctions whatsoever" in laws that have no exceptions for rape or incest, for example, she said.

"It's hard to believe that there is never any medical reason whatsoever – ectopic pregnancies, for instance – that would not indicate that there are some moments when the moral nature of the act at least fits," Chittister said.

Such "absolutizing" seems only to apply to policies that affect women, Chittister said. "I frankly cannot understand why women's health issues or abortion is absolutely the only life issue that the church has not nuanced.”

"We nuance that men can kill for all sorts of reasons. Men can kill to defend themselves. They can kill to defend the state. They can punish by killing in the name of the state," Chittister said. "But women, never – not even to save their own pregnant life. It seems to me to be morally confused. Certainly, it's morally inconsistent."

(Heidi Schlumpf. “Sr. Joan Chittister's 2004 quote on 'pro-life' versus 'pro-birth' goes viral.” National Catholic Reporter. May 23, 2019.)