Act 1: A Personhood Amendment
[This will] ...amend the California Constitution to ensure that human rights for everyone begin at conception. A child not yet born will thus have the same rights and full protection under law as those of us who have a few years on us.
A personhood amendment? Are you fucking kidding me? In Cali-fucking-fornia? You, sirs and madams, have been taking entirely too much advantage of our fine homegrown cannabis industry if you think a personhood amendment has even the most microscopic chance of success here. In 2008, the first personhood amendment was resoundingly spanked 75-25 in Colorado, which has voted Republican in every presidential election since 1964, until 2008. What in the airborne copulation makes you people think bluer-than-blue California will go for that utter shite?
Lest anyone think this is a good idea, might I remind you of the ginormous clusterfucktastrophe this kind of bill could produce:
- Since a fertilized egg is undetectable unless and until it attaches to the uterine walls, any woman not actively on her period could use the carpool lane at any time, on the basis that she *might* be pregnant. There's no way to know for sure she's not, after all, and >50% of fertilized eggs never implant anyway, so it's relatively likely she is.
- Fertilized eggs must somehow be counted in the census. How, exactly, would that work, given that they're undetectable?
- Women may claim their undetectable fertilized eggs as dependents for tax purposes.
- Every woman's period is a potential crime scene, what with the fact that there might have been a fertilized egg that didn't implant being bled out along with the rest of it. Should we all be collecting our menstrual blood to send to the labs for autopsy?
- Same goes for a miscarriage. Potential crime scene! The fetus must be autopsied for evidence of foul play.
- Women's behavior during pregnancy could be regulated by the state, just like traffic laws constrain individual behavior for the safety of others around you, pregnant women's behavior could be constrained for the safety of their fetuses. Who's going to regulate this? How much Starbucks is too much? If a pregnant woman has sushi, will she be arrested for endangering her fetus? (Of course, this already happens. See: the Florida woman who was confined to hospital bed rest during a high-risk pregnancy because she sought a second opinion when her doctor ordered bed rest, and she told him she couldn't because she had two other children to take care of.)
- Not only would abortion be outlawed, but the kinds of birth control which may have as one of their effects the prevention of implantation. Such as the Pill, the Ring, the IUD, and the Patch.
- IVF treatments could be outlawed, because usually there are more fertilized eggs created than used.
Act 2: A California School District Bans...THE DICTIONARY.
I wish I were making this up. But no, the Menifee School District pulled copies of the Merriam-Webster dictionary from shelves because it included definitions for words such as "oral sex". Are we truly that terrified of knowledge, then, that the MOTHERFUCKING DICTIONARY poses some kind of terrible threat to our fragile little children's minds? Schools are supposed to be places of LEARNING. Learning includes knowledge, factual knowledge about the world around us. Oral sex is, like it or not, a Real Thing In The World. It exists. Do people really think a dictionary definition of oral sex is something too salacious for a child? Listen, people, if the kid is looking up "oral sex" in a dictionary, clearly ve ALREADY knows something's up. For the record, here is the terrifying entry for which the ENTIRE GODDAMN DICTIONARY was taken from the shelves:
Main Entry: oral sex
: oral stimulation of the genitals : cunnilingus, fellatio
Wow. That's really dirty, innit? Gods forbid a child could look up for veself a clinical, passionless description of oral-genital contact. We wouldn't want them actually learning things, now would we?
But let's never forget, words are dangerous. Shades of 1984...