Blogging for choice

Today is Blog for Choice Day, something I found out from Mombian and Bitch PhD. As I find myself crushed by schoolwork, I can’t begin to do the topic justice, so I direct you to check out the links above.

Also, go read this. I came to it a few days ago via Bitch PhD, and I think she gets at the core of it for me with this:

A separate, but related issue that was raised today is how the law should fit into all of this. As a law student (barrister-to-be, as my father likes to say), this is of particular interest to me. This morning, Georgia state Representative Stacy Abrams spoke about growing up religious and anti-abortion rights, and about finding her own belief system in her adulthood. While she doesn’t call herself pro-choice, she said, she’s not pro-life either. As a tax attorney, she has thought a lot about how the law shapes people’s lives (she claims that the tax code is inherently unfair to women!), and she has come to this conclusion: “The role of law is not the same as the role of each individual.”

Ka-blam.

In that one sentence, Rep. Abrams said what the pro-choice movement has had troble articulating for the past almost 35 years since Roe v. Wade. What the abortion rights movement is saying is not “abortion for everyone!” but rather “abortion without judgment for anyone who wants it.” It’s a big difference linguistically, politically, and in reality. And it has plagued the movement for years. But I think Rep. Abrams got it just right. The law can do a ton to protect us from encroachment (speech, religion, basic First Amendment protections), but it should not impose any ideal upon our daily experiences and the choices we make that shape our lives. Like she said, our roles as individuals should not be that of law, and vice versa.

a bird and a bottle also has a post specifically for today with even more links.