Jen Jorczak

More on the fallout from SJR 7's demise

Filed By Jen Jorczak | April 12, 2007 10:39 AM | comments

Filed in: Fundie Watch, Living, Politics, The Movement
Tags: anti-sex politics, gay rights, reproductive rights

Okay, so I'm a little late on the promised update of the anti-abortion amendments filed in retaliation for the failure of SJR 7, but in addition to the six I posted about last Friday, we saw four more introduced on Monday.

One was a repeat, one was the same trick they've been trying for a while to close abortion clinics through an obscene amount of regulation without actually making it illegal, one says doctors would have to give abortion patients certain parts of the mandated information in writing (as opposed to orally, as is currently mandated. Because the patient will definitely change her mind if you hand her a paper that says "ultrasound imaging is available.").

The last tried to say that emergency contraception causes an abortion. Which it doesn't, by the way, but that's beside the point. (continued)

Somehow, through some magical mix of constituents, lobbyists, other caucus members, and probably some partisan dealmaking, none of these amendments passed. Some weren't called up for debate/vote. Others were, only to have the bill's original author thwart the actions of the amendment's author and pull the bill entirely. (No bill means no amendment. Unfortunately, it also means no bill. 3 of the 5 bills to which these 10 amendments were offered died.)

Which leaves me confused. None of the legislators offering these amendments are medical professionals. They're not motivated by patient safety--if they were, perhaps we'd see a health plan that actually passed our state legislature, with a budget, rather than posturing and finger-pointing.

And they claim to be religious folks but they don't seem to have much compassion for people who aren't just like them--and they claim to be patriotic, but trying to sneak these amendments in with no room or time for public discussion and open reasoned debate seems to me to be a direct hit on the democratic process.

And today, I read over at the Star that members of Indiana's Republican party--whom I always understood to be as pro-business as you can get--are trying to bully Indiana business leaders and dictate to them what their companies should or should not be saying?

I've spoken before about anti-sex politicians but even though I have this theory that their motivation is fear of sex/ people who enjoy having sex, I still don't understand their fear. Do they really think that sex is so bad? Do they really think they're gonna stop people from having sex? Do they really think that it would be a good thing to stop people from having sex?

Anybody else have some thoughts here? I'm at a loss. Please, somebody clue me in.


Recent Entries Filed under Politics:

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.


Jen, I'm not sure they don't enjoy sex. Some like it enough to have married more than once., But then their obsession with other people's sex may be the reason for breakups.

I think they are more obsessed with power. The power to shove their beliefs beyond the church and into law.

The true believers think that every frozen embryo is human and should be adopted out, regardless of the people who created it. They believe that NO women should have abortions regardless of what circumstances revolve around the pregnancy including rape. incest or even the life of the mother. They are absolutists. They take the Bible (their version) literally and expect you to as well. And when the public square is declared non-religious, they go ballistic.

The saddest thing is that many of their supporters are cynical bastards who only want to use these issues to gain and retain power. This is the Hershman, Bosma, Miller, Clark claque!

Jen Jorczak | April 12, 2007 11:42 AM

You definitely have a point about the power structure. Playing on people's fear keeps them in power, and they don't want to give that up.

But I didn't really mean the power players when I asked those questions--I really meant to ask it about the millions of people (in IN and across the country) they get to believe them. Those people seem to really believe them that tolerance is a gateway drug, that the "gay agenda" includes the Apocalypse. What's up with those people?

They get everyday people to believe them because most folks are hugely preoccupied with everyday living/surviving. To name a few, most people worry about keeping jobs and healthcare, educating their kids in failing school systems, living the horror of hearing that another child was raped/murdered, existing in a world of deadly environmental issues, senseless war, and/or the fear and knowing that they won't be able to afford retirement when their turn comes. Maybe for these reasons that they too rely of what generations before them have, they look to community and religious leaders to help guide their moral compass.

Unfortunately, despicably, some of these so called leaders (aka, cynical bastards) have abused their positions in order to forward their own agendas,i.e., political power, free flowing 'donations', religious beliefs. And the only way to stop them is to continue doing what everyone here has been doing the best they know how. Just stand up and tell the others the truth about ourselves and with as many different voices as possible - over and over and over - or at least until they can't help but stumble upon it at the end of their long hard day!

Too, I meant to add that I've long believed that one of the quickest means to help those unaffected others to listen-up/lend their undivided attention to SJR7 would be to attach an amendment that limits the extension of the 1000+ benefits of marriage to first time only marriages.

Ha, once again giving Hirschman, Turner, Bos, Miller, Clark exactly what they have been deceitfully asking for - a real vote from the people. Albeit that vote would also come from another group of wide-awake-something-to-lose people.


Jen Jorczak | April 12, 2007 4:32 PM

"Just stand up and tell the others the truth": Okay, I'll keep talking. :0)

"limits the extension of the 1000+ benefits of marriage to first time only marriages": VERY interesting idea!

It seems too bad that we don't have a system where we could put different options on the ballot and let people vote on several alternatives all at once, rather than a yes/no option on a predetermined (and in the case of SJR7, extremely biased and falsely marketed) sentence.

Jen, I certainly do hope that you will keep talking, I love reading your posts.*insert smiley face here*

(Only a cynic believes that talk is cheap.)

I think people are frightened by change and resist it forcefully. The 1950's mom and pop stereotype obviously doesn't hold water anymore, but these baby boomers are scared to death of something that doesn't look like home and hearth did as a child. It frightens them to think that others could be enjoying themselves and living their lives without the power structure in place that comforts them.

I think I agree, Bil. I mean, they keep on blaming us for destroying the family and labeling themselves "pro-family", even though their core positions are by definition anti-family. That narrative probably speaks to a lot of people who think that there is a problem with the family as an institution right now. And some of them would have reason to believe that, considering that all-out war that REagan declared on unions, decreasing their membership from around half the population in the 1950's to around ten percent nowadays. Less union membership means less job stability, less health care, and lower wages, all of which put rather large burdens on Middle American families. Especially considering that the number on cause of divorces is money.

I don't think that people would buy the idea that the family was in crisis unless they were actually feeling something along those lines. That general mood, especially considering that many of the people who are hardest hit by the disappearance of the middle and working classes are religious and therefore scary to corporate culture, they do what they know best and co-opt those feelings and redirect them conservatively by scapegoating feminism and queer folk. The narrative derives "proof" from a variety of "evidence", but mainly repeats itself until it begins to sound true.

That might be why so many people on the religious right are divorced, etc: they're channeling the emasculation they feel from those experiences into controlling women through legislation and eliminating sexual and gender diversity to bring back a time where straight men controlled more than they do today. And people who haven't necessarily had those same experiences still have the idea that the gays are a rich and powerful group of people out to destroy the family and birth control makes girls promiscuous because they need something to explain what they legitimately experience: the pain caused by divorce, teen pregnancy, their declining paychecks in real dollars, all in contradiction to the increasing affluence portrayed in the media, probably the only place these sorts see gay people, and see us only as rich and white, and mostly male.

Just some thoughts. They might actually have a point but just be misdirecting the whole thing.

Jen Jorczak | April 13, 2007 9:35 AM

a lot to think about here... I will ponder and post again.

Marla R. Stevens | April 13, 2007 2:50 PM

They don't statistically just love sex, they're disproportionately kinky, too -- or so say the Indy pro-doms who swear that their best business is when groups like the Promise Keepers come to town.