What do you mean I can't pierce that?
Two things in the news yesterday made me, yet again, sick to my stomach. And though they are two very different issues, they are very much the same. Let’s start with the first one, nestled in the south (shocking!), in the state of Georgia.
In a bill which passed 160-0 without debate, the state of Georgia has banned genital piercing. That’s right. A woman can no longer get her clit or labia pierced. Her ears? Yes. Her nose? Yup. Her labret? Her bridge? Her cheeks? Her septum? Yes, yes, yes. Her pussy? No. His cock? No. Oh, wait, yes! He can! Because for some reason, the ban only applies to women.
Rep. Bill Heath, a republican (how many times can I use the word “shocking”?) from Bremen, GA said of the practice, "What? I've never seen such a thing. I, uh, I wouldn't approve of anyone doing it. I don't think that's an appropriate thing to be doing." No, that's a real quote. Well, I’ll also venture to guess he’s never given a dirty Sanchez, either. Some people just don’t know what they’re missing.
Now, after that little segue, let’s really jump into the real issue here: Control over the bodies of women. Why are men allowed to get Prince Albert’s, but a woman can’t pierce her labia? As a matter of fact, the crime will carry a sentence of up to 20 years in prison. That’s right. 20 years. Now, why, oh why are our prisons so overcrowded?
Also on Capitol Hill yesterday, a new law to be signed by GWB stating that if you harm a fetus, knowingly or not, while committing a crime against a pregnant woman, you can be charged with the crime against the mother and the unborn. The legislation defines an "unborn child" as a child in utero, which it says "means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb." We all know where this is going.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein tried to amend the bill by making penalties more severe for attacks on pregnant women while making no attempt to “define the beginning of life”. She said, “(This is) the first step in removing a woman's right to choice, particularly in the early months of a pregnancy before viability."
Now, most Americans will see this as a good thing, without really reading into what can go wrong here. You see Laci Petersen, who was very pregnant with a baby boy, Conor, who she had every intention of keeping and nurturing and loving forever and ever. She and her unborn baby died at the hands of a murderer (allegedly her husband). She didn’t want an abortion. There is a way to draw the line. That was a double murder in the mind of most people. However, we cannot, as a nation say that a fetus at 6 weeks differs in any way than a fetus at 6 months. All of a sudden, they are trying to paint a picture of the happy little viable Jimmy, swimming all gung-ho like in Mom’s womb, smiling and dreaming of a day where he’ll be playing ball with dad, and eating hot dogs in the summer, and then what?
This will become an abortion issue. Once the Right tries to overturn Roe v. Wade (again), they will be able to use the wording of a law on the books which states in no uncertain terms that life begins at conception. It’s precedent. It will get sticky and oozy and repugnant and the gloves will be off. And gay marriage step aside, because this is where the country gets divided every time. And, doctors, get ready. And let's hope coat hangers work better this time around. And stock up on that anticeptic. Back to the dark ages we go.