Fundagelism

I've been letting some of the more egregious efforts to restrict a woman's right to abortion swirl around in my head for a while. For instance, in Georgia, an attempt was made to require a DEATH WARRANT prior to obtaining an abortion--complete with an "appointed guardian" for the fetus. Similarly, Oklahoma attempted this same cynical ploy.

Oh--and I know this has been noted already--Mary comes to mind--but did anyone notice Karen Hughes becoming merely the latest Bush administration operative to compare political opponents--in this case, pro-choice, pro-women's health activists and demontrators--to terrorists?

This was crossing my mind as I read this seemingly unrelated story in the Guardian UK about three young girls who were POISONED for simply going to school. But then it hit me: just as being the lesser of two evils in Iraq can't possibly be called a success, neither can we condemn brutality such as poisoning young girls while at the same time engaging in the physical and psychological torture that results from women being denied access to safe, legal abortions. To do anything to deny women this right is a de facto way of telling women that they are less than citizens--indeed, it implies that women are less than the embryo or fetus they are carrying.

And then I came across this: article: in summary, it notes that 59% of the American public, according to polling data, believe in Armageddon. Hmmn. When you're anticipating the imminent end of humanity, I guess it becomes easy to trample on rights. After all, why would the annihilated care much? Between the rapture, the selection of the good, bad, and ugly, etc. etc.--with plenty of PG-rated fire and brimstone (but nary an R rated display of nudity or passion anywhere)--forcing a woman to carry a fetus to term if she becomes pregnant is, I suppose, just another way to ensure one's good grace come the day they open the big book looking for your name.

Unless the country manages to move away from its fusion of religion and politics, often personified in the person of Dubya.

Deep down, I think most Americans--not all, mind you, but most--prefer a healty separation between religion and matters of state. Such craven posturing towards notions like the world being flat, 4,000 years old, and possessing a "chosen" people along with the rest of us is a little far-fetched. If nothing else, separation of church and state is financially more beneficial than the opposite--although many scientists are theists or deists, and many regularly attend church.

However, there is most definitely a tendency amongst some of our species to engage in the behavior of "God said it, I believe it, that settles it." To which I reply: those rules are fine for the interior four walls and roof of your home. But the rest of us don't buy it, so lay off. I'll even leave you to your bible studies classes and whatnot, provided you leave the public spaces of this country to THE PUBLIC, which is not exclusively populated by folks like John Ashcroft.

But where or when will the Dubya's and Asscrossed's of the world meet their comeuppence? Here's hoping it will be by ballot box in November; otherwise, exile is looking more and more like an option.