Different Day, Same Shit.

"I’m beginning to get some evidence from certain doctors and certain scientists that have done research on women’s wombs after they've gone through the surgery, and they've compared the wombs of women who were on the birth control pill to those who were not on the birth control pill," Swanson explains.

"And they have found that with women who are on the birth control pill, there are these little tiny fetuses, these little babies, that are embedded into the womb. They’re just like dead babies. They’re on the inside of the womb. And these wombs of women who have been on the birth control pill effectively have become graveyards for lots and lots of little babies."

The above quoted comes from Kevin Swanson. No, not Joe and Bonnie's kid, although this Kevin's done a great job turning himself into a cartoonish caricature. This Kevin is a fundamentalist pastor with a radio show of his very own. He's also a guy who genuinely believes (or at least wants people to believe) that birth control not only ruthlessly murders forming fetuses on contact, but it also turns the uterine wall into a vertical graveyard of little tiny fetuses, at which point they're eventually discarded and flushed away in a genocidal red tide, meeting an ignoble end on a tampon or a maxi-pad.

No, Kevin, birth control does not work that way. Here, let me help you (and anyone else clueless about birth control) understand how it all goes down, courtesy of Columbia University:

Birth control pills prevent pregnancy through several mechanisms, mainly by stopping ovulation. If no egg is released, there is nothing to be fertilized by sperm, and the woman cannot get pregnant. Most birth control pills contain synthetic forms of two female hormones: estrogen and progestin. These synthetic hormones stabilize a woman's natural hormone levels, and prevent estrogen from peaking mid-cycle. Without the estrogen bump, the pituitary gland does not release other hormones that normally cause the ovaries to release mature eggs.

Specifically, synthetic estrogen in the pill works to:

• Stop the pituitary gland from producing follicle stimulating hormone (FSH) and luteinizing hormone (LH) in order to prevent ovulation.
• Support the uterine lining (endometrium) to prevent breakthrough bleeding mid-cycle.

Meanwhile, synthetic progestin works to:

• Stop the pituitary gland from producing LH in order to prevent egg release.
• Make the uterine lining inhospitable to a fertilized egg.
• Partially limit the sperm's ability to fertilize the egg.
• Thicken the cervical mucus to hinder sperm movement (although this effect may not be key to preventing pregnancy).

Seems like poor Kevin's confusing birth control with more controversial abortifacients like Mifepristone, better known under the catchier name "RU 486." Then again, lumping the two together works well for drawing more outrage from concerned anti-abortion groups, as well as intentionally muddying the waters for everyone else.

At any rate, you have to wonder where our friend Kevin came up with his home-grown theory on how birth control strangles the Gift of Life™ and tacks it on the wall like a Cenobite's bulletin board posting. The above quote indicates research was involved, and I'd like to know who did that research and what it entailed. I have a feeling Kevin simply reached back to the idea of preformation, where ready-made modules of humanity are fired off in the form of sperm into the female uterus, where the one (or more) chosen sperm will eventually grow into a healthy human being or wind up the uterine equivalent of a deer antler on a sportsman's wall.

Oddly enough, nothing's said about the wanton murder that male masturbation causes, especially if you keep in mind the whole "preformation" idea. Trillions upon trillions of sperm are left to die a cottony death on the napkins, paper towels, socks and bedsheets of young and adult American men, yet nothing's ever said about this genocide of epic proportions. As one unlucky spermatozoa croaked just before expiring on a hotel mattress, "Kevin Swanson don't care about sperm people."





There's also this thing about Kevin homeschooling himself. Not to knock the homeschool movement, but it's the perfect way for religious fundamentalists, the mentally imbalanced and the overly paranoid to short-circuit and bypass the public education process, creating a legion of misinformed and otherwise maligned beings who don't do all that well in society. Meanwhile, it causes problems for successful homeschoolers and their kids, now that they're lumped in with the snake handlers, crazies and other assorted assholes.

Kevin self-matriculated from his own self-managed homeschool and wound up as "the student body president of a large (unnamed) west coast university." He homeschools his kids. He writes books for homeschoolers. Thousands, even millions of people are learning Kevin's theory on birth control's gynecological graveyard. That should bring a shudder to anyone with common sense.

The Handmaid's Tale is set in the near future in the Republic of Gilead, a country formed within the borders of what was formerly the United States of America. It was founded by a racist, homophobic, male chauvinist, nativist, theocratic-organized military coup as an ideologically driven response to the pervasive ecological, physical and social degradation of the country.
Beginning with a staged terrorist attack (blamed on Islamic extremist terrorists) that kills the President and most of Congress, a movement calling itself the "Sons of Jacob" launch a revolution and suspend the United States Constitution under the pretext of restoring order.

Taking advantage of electronic banking, they were quickly able to freeze the assets of all women and other "undesirables" in the country, stripping them of their rights. The new theocratic military dictatorship, styled "The Republic of Gilead", moved quickly to consolidate its power and reorganize society along a new militarized, hierarchical, compulsorily Christian regime of Old Testament-inspired social and religious orthodoxy among its newly created social classes. In this society, almost all women are forbidden to read.

The story is presented from the point of view of a woman called Offred (a patronymic name that means "Of Fred", referring to the man she serves). The character is one of a class of individuals kept as concubines ("handmaids") for reproductive purposes by the ruling class in an era of declining births. The book is told in the first person by Offred, who describes her life during her third assignment as a handmaid, in this case to Fred (referred to as "The Commander"). If Offred fails to become pregnant on this, her third attempt, she will be declared an "unwoman" and discarded.

Interspersed in flashbacks are portions of her life from before and during the beginning of the revolution, when she finds she has lost all autonomy to her husband, through her failed attempt to escape with her husband and daughter to Canada, to her indoctrination into life as a handmaid. Through her eyes, the structure of Gilead's society is described, including the several different categories of women and their circumscribed lives in the new theocracy.

I wonder if, when Canadian author Margaret Atwood published The Handmaid's Tale back in 1985, she knew that fundamentalists would actually try to set up something similar to the theocratic hell that was the Republic of Gilead. Today, her classic dystopian novel is considered an unofficial rough draft of the kind of society today's staunch conservative Republicans would very much like to see.

The Handmaid's Tale paints an ugly picture of a nation in which the anti-abortion and anti-birth control "pro-life" movement comes to an odious, yet logical conclusion. Instead of attempting to explain in my own words the odiousness of a Gileadian existence, here's an excerpt from "Giving Birth to a 'Rapist's Child': A Discussion and Analysis of the Limited Legal Protections Afforded to Women Who Become Mothers Through Rape," written for the Georgetown Law Journal by Shauna R. Prewitt, a lawyer and a survivor of rape who - get this - had to fight off her rapist's legal attempts to obtain custody and visitation rights for the child she bore due to the rape:

Like the stranger-rape prototype, the pregnant-raped-woman prototype may have emerged and continues to persist because it reinforces social hierarchies. For example, by describing the unborn children in terms that suggest the children are exclusively extensions of the rapist fathers, proponents of the pregnant-raped-woman prototype—underpinned by the rape-product justification—reify many sexist and patriarchal ideas. Sandra Mahkorn argues that rhetoric which portrays the unborn child as “being the property of the rapist” derives from a “sexist mentality.” It is the mentality that views a woman as “merchandise to which a man can claim ownership,” such that any offspring of that relationship are viewed as “the property of the owner, the father.” As a result, through use of the pregnant-raped-woman prototype, “chauvinistic predispositions are tolerated and succumbed to.” This “property” view not only allows for the illogic that a child conceived through rape is exclusively a genetic product of the rapist father, but also “de-legitimiz[es] [the] maternal genetic link,” and thereby, “erase[s] all identity characteristics of the mother other than that as a sexual container.” In doing so, it “reifies the patriarchal notion of patrilineal descent,” as well as the sexist ideology that “promote[s] the concept that a woman is a mere receptacle.” Finally, the depiction of an unborn child as being “‘worthless’ or ‘valueless’” derives from the notion that pregnancy from rape is “symbolic of ‘damage’ to male property.”

The world of The Handmaid's Tale effectively reduces female existence to mere property and such property is utilized as tools for sexual gratification or tools for procreation and lineage continuation. To insure both functions are always available, barriers to both are brought down under religious and moral pretexts with assistance from legal and judicial avenues. Therefore, abortion, birth control and the very idea of sovereignty over one's own body are barriers that are to be brought down. Once that happens, society's menfolk, or at least those who wield considerable amounts of power, will have their theoretical pick of the female litter.

Notice how the commanders have their pick of wives, "Marthas," handmaids and of course, "Jezebels" for relief and entertainment. Women who can't serve one or the other purpose are deemed "unwomen" and essentially sent away to die. Meanwhile, the common man only has an "econowife" to look forward to. Gileadian society's "big men" get to benefit from the spoils while the foot soldiers contend with the crumbs, along with proud accolades for their service under said big men and promises of more crumbs being thrown their way in due time.

This world is one men like Rep. Todd Akin and VP candidate Paul Ryan advocate for bringing into fruition, even if they themselves don't quite know it. Many others are unwilling to just come out and admit that the bedroom and kitchen are the only places they believe women should be. Others have religious and moral objections to abortion and birth control; some people are more than willing to hitchhike their way to achieving an abortion/birth control ban, even at the cost of reducing women to living Fleshlights and incubators in the long run. Akin and other politicians are definitely willing to use the conservative pro-life movement as a slingshot to political career advancement, regardless of the consequences.

As for conservatives bent on slighting their liberal counterparts by ushering in odious legislation that further turns women into the aforementioned "handmaids," they're shooting themselves in the foot in the long run, too. And just as pro-lifers seem to cease caring about the new lives they claim to protect once they're out of the womb, the Gileadian society in The Handmaid's Tale is quick to quietly dispose of newborns born with defects and shuffle "undesirables" out of the way. Even the women who've outlived their procreative and sexual usefulness are exiled to the novel's wasteland colonies. I'm sure pro-lifers would say they would never act that way in similar circumstances, but the lack of concern for life outside of the womb tends to make their concern for life within it seem...hollow.

Unlike the novel, there's no natural disaster or crisis needed to start slouching towards Gilead. All it takes is a few people convinced that women would have better lives as property than they would as full-fledged human beings, and scores of people who are just following their moral convictions without knowing exactly who they're following.

Most people know the story of how Jesus, the Son of God, came into being. One of the more interesting aspects of the story (and one that's also a big part of the Catholic faith) is the immaculate conception of Mary, precipitated by the appearance of the angel Gabriel, his message of Jesus' impending birth through Mary and the intervention of the Holy Spirit afterwards. Considering Joseph was a husband-to-be and the lovely couple didn't subscribe to the whole concept of sex before marriage, this event of immaculate conception remains one of the most intriguing episodes throughout Jesus' life, death and resurrection:*

29 Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. 30 But the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary; you have found favor with God. 31 You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever; his kingdom will never end.”

34 “How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?”

35 The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called[b] the Son of God. 36 Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be unable to conceive is in her sixth month. 37 For no word from God will ever fail.”

38 “I am the Lord’s servant,” Mary answered. “May your word to me be fulfilled.” Then the angel left her.

Since then, the laws of physics and biology have put the kibosh on any future acts of immaculate conception. But the Arizona state legislature stumbled up on a way to rekindle that long-lost act through the power of bill-making:

Arizona’s HB 2036 takes Nebraska’s 20-week abortion ban one step further by starting the clock on pregnancies at the woman’s last last menstrual period, which could be two weeks before fertilization.

Specifically, the bill would “[p]rohibit abortions at or after twenty weeks of gestation, except in cases of a medical emergency, based on the documented risks to women’s health and the strong medical evidence that unborn children feel pain during an abortion at that gestational age,” where gestational age is defined as “age of the unborn child as calculated from the first day of the last menstrual period of the pregnant woman.”

Take note of the underlined. The entire menstrual cycle lasts for about 28 days. The luteal phase, where the corpus luteum develops and subsequently atrophies sans fertilization of the egg, lasts up to 16 days.

In effect, this means that if a woman has sex with someone, she could technically be pregnant weeks before the pregnancy test, morning sickness or tell-tale lack of a period gives her the official heads-up. Not exactly immaculate conception, but they're getting there. It's more like "pre-pregnancy," where the state knows you're pregnant long before you decide to become pregnant. Or something.

More importantly, this means that if she decides, on the 19th or 20th week of gestation to abort, she'll technically be in violation of the abortion ban, because the window of opportunity slammed shut on the 18th week:

Guttmacher Institute’s State Issues Manager Elizabeth Nash told Raw Story that obstetricians start the clock on pregnancies after the “last menstrual period” to “be on the safe side.”

“Certainly, they are trying move the gestational cutoff from what had been over the last two years a 20-week gestational cutoff to an 18-week gestational cutoff,” Nash explained. “At the same time, they are trying to say, ‘Oh, this is a 20-week abortion ban.’ And they get away with that with the definition of gestational age that’s in the bill.”

Determining the gestation date this way is a rather creative and supremely sneaky goalpost move. Which means it serves conservative pro-lifers and their GOP counterparts well. Selling a 20-week abortion ban that actually kicks in two weeks earlier than anyone expects constitutes fraud and deception on part of bill's supporters, not that it matters much.

At some point, someone's gonna have the bright idea of suggesting that the pro-life anti-abortion contingent should just assume that all woman are presumed pregnant until actually pregnant, to eliminate all possibility of legal or illegal abortive acts. Of course, that'd also include hormonal contraceptives, since they prevent ovulation and fertilization. In short, basically anything that interferes with ovulation and fertilization. At that point, you'd have to wonder if that would include the entirely natural act of corpus luteum discharge.

Is a tampon or a sanitary napkin admissible as evidence of an abortion? Would birth control pills signify intent? How about someone experiencing a miscarriage?

Meanwhile, semen discharge from masturbation or wet dreams is largely overlooked. What? You seriously think the menfolk would willingly legislate their own reproductive faculties?**

*If you believe otherwise, fine. Don't try to take a chunk out of my ass over it, thanks.


**Nevermind the cases of surgical and chemical castration for sex offenders and black males with "virulent" perceived sexual appetites.

"What does it say about the college co-ed Sandra Fluke, who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex, what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She's having so much sex she can't afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex. What does that make us? We're the pimps."

If we are going to pay for your contraceptives, and thus pay for you to have sex. We want something for it. We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch," he said.

Sigh. The War on Uteri™ continues unabated, from state legislatures churning out bill after bill to restrict, undermine and intimidate women from exercising control of their reproductive faculties to conservative front-liners like Rush Limbaugh and Foster Friess letting loose with ultimately misogynistic rhetoric such as the above.

Here we have financially well-off men with their own personal demons and presumed difficulty in maintaining their sexual vigor declaring women who wish to NOT be punished with pregnancy or STDs whenever they have sex on their own terms and with partners they choose, "prostitutes," "sluts" and "whores." You have to wonder if these men and others like them are just angry they can't get any unless they hold out the carrots of power and wealth and then hope some unsuspecting intern takes a bite. Sexual deprivation and frustration tends to manifest in strange ways.

“I get such a chuckle when these things come out. Here we have millions of our fellow Americans unemployed. We have jihadist camps being set up in central – in Latin America, which Rick has been warning about, and people seem to be so preoccupied with sex. I think it says something about our culture. We maybe need a massive therapy session so we can concentrate on what the real issues are. And this contraceptive thing, my gosh, it’s so — such inexpensive. Back in my days, they used Bayer aspirin for contraceptives. The gals put it between their knees and it wasn’t that costly.”

But it's not just them. It's several segments of the national populace who enjoy hearing men like Limbaugh and Friess say the things they're too polite or afraid to openly proclaim themselves. These people have a low opinion of women who won't follow the narrow sexual path set down by a combination of religious doctrine and a pathological fear of sex itself. They can't enjoy sexual freedom for fear of being ostracized as a whore or a slut, hence appearances must be kept and "whores" must be shamed. Ta-Nehisi Coates calls it the "normalization of cruelty." I call it "unleashing your inner asshole."

Last time, President Barack Obama sidestepped the GOP and Catholic Church's opposition to birth control as a part of health insurance coverage, by allowing health insurance providers to directly offer that coverage to employees without religious entities and employers paying a single dime, thereby eliminating the possibility of "material cooperation with evil." Bereft of the ability to claim a religious objection to birth control in health care plans, the GOP is going for broke:

In response to the Obama administration’s requirement that all healthcare plans provide birth control, Senator Roy Blunt (R-MO), in another effort to pander the 1% of the female population who have never used birth control and the men who want them to be barefoot and pregnant, introduced an amendment to the transportation bill (that’s right, transportation bill) that would allow any employer to deny any coverage on any whim.

Sen. Blunt knew this measure would die a hot death if it wasn't quietly buried in an unrelated bill when no one was looking. And this, ladies and gents, is why the Democrats should be constantly on guard for such legislative treachery from the GOP -- they'd do anything to achieve their goals, no matter how.

Fortunately, Harry Reid was able to smell this bullshit and put a quick end to it:

The move was intercepted by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., who blocked the contraception-repeal amendment being called for by Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., calling it “senseless.”

”I appreciate the Republicans’ opportunity to never lose an opportunity to mess up a good piece of legislation,” Reid said sarcastically. “Let’s do the banking part of this bill. Let’s do the finance part of this bill. Let’s do the commerce part of this bill. But to show how the Republicans never lose an opportunity to mess up a good piece of legislation, listen to this: They’re talking about 1st amendment rights, the Constitution.”

Now, now, Harry. We all know the First Amendment and the Constitution in general only applies when it works in the GOP's favor.

And here is why this measure was so dangerous in the first place:

Under the measure, an insurer or an employer would be able to claim a moral or religious objection to covering HIV/AIDS screenings, Type 2 Diabetes treatments, cancer tests or anything else they deem inappropriate or the result of an “unhealthy” or “immoral” lifestyle. Similarly, a health plan could refuse to cover mental health care on the grounds that the plan believes that psychiatric problems should be treated with prayer.

Imagine going to your doctor to have a life-saving procedure performed, only to be denied health coverage for it because your employer deems it anathema to his/her/their religious beliefs. In order to eradicate the scourge of women having open and affordable access to birth control, they're ready and willing to place other lives in danger.