Number of the Day

72: The number of hours in a mandated "waiting period" for abortion-seekers being proposed in Utah by state representative Steve Eliason, who is a Republican, of course.

Utah Rep. Steve Eliason (R) has proposed a bill (HB 461 [pdf]) that would require women to wait 72 hours before receiving abortion care, the Salt Lake Tribune reports. Under current law, women must wait 24 hours before receiving abortion services. If approved, Utah would have the same waiting period as South Dakota, which currently has the longest waiting period in the U.S.

Planned Parenthood Association of Utah has filed a lawsuit to overturn the law, arguing that it violates Roe v. Wade. The group said South Dakota's 72-hour waiting period puts an undue burden on women, who often have to travel long distances to reach the two abortion clinics in the state.

Eliason said the extension would give women the same amount of time "to make a major life decision" as "any consumer has to consider cancelling a mortgage."

I am really running out of ways to make the point that women and other people with uteri are not infants who are ignorant of their options (even though Republican-favored abstinence-only sex ed programs endeavor to turn them into exactly that). We don't need time to "really think it through" or "consider alternatives" or whatevthefuck Rep. Dipshit and the rest of the nation's Mendacious Band of Anti-Choice Fuckheads are alleging will happen in the three days they delay us from terminating a pregnancy.

Forcing a person to wait three days will not change the fact that zie does not want to have a child. Even if it changes hir mind about terminating the pregnancy, it doesn't change whatever circumstances brought hir to an abortion clinic in the first place.

Zie'll still walk out just as devoid of choices, just as un- or underemployed, just as broke, just as in debt, just as uninsured, just as lacking daycare, just as unable to care for hirself and/or hir existing children, just as in need of medication that zie can't take while pregnant, just as enmeshed in an unhealthy or abusive relationship, just the same as zie was when zie walked in.

Zie'll just have been guilted into making sacrifices zie doesn't want to make, to honor someone else's mistaken perceptions about hir morality.

All of these absurd barriers to termination are utter hogwash, rooted in the damnable fairy tale that women and other people with uteri are incapable of making the best decisions for themselves and their own bodies (and, frequently, for the children they already have).

The reality is this: There is an inextricable link between the economy, the funding of social services, and abortion. If "pro-lifers" really wanted women to want to have babies, they would start arguing for universal healthcare, just for a fucking start, considering about one-fourth of women seeking abortions cite their own health or possible health problems with the fetus as reasons for the termination, owing to concerns including "a lack of prenatal care."

But they're not pro-life. They're just anti-women.

And they can caterwaul about how that's not true all they fucking want, but, the truth is, they refuse to listen to women, and other people with uteri, to the millions of women who are telling them they don't need waiting periods or ultrasounds or parental/spousal consent or anti-abortion counselors or any of the other disincentives being proposed to deter them from terminating unwanted pregnancy, but do need jobs and healthcare and childcare and parental leave laws and associated institutional framework that supports successful parenthood.

And when you refuse to listen to women, your argument that you're not explicitly anti-women holds precious little water.

Particularly when your state has failed utterly to fund a robust social safety net, but has been trying, with various degrees of success, to chip away at Roe virtually since the decision granted people with uteri the right to terminate pregnancies.

[Via Steph Herold.]