With the Florida Democratic Party supporting the concept of “nature rights” by which swamps and such are given legal rights, including a legal right for eco-nutjobs to sue on nature’s behalf, it was almost inevitable that the state of Florida would consider what the state of Ohio did: Explicitly banning any such “nature rights” insanity.
“Right now, nature-rights laws in the U.S. are being passed at the municipal level, with more than 30 cities already passing such laws. […] Florida Republican state representative Blaise Ingoglia has authored a bill to outlaw municipalities from passing nature-rights laws in the Sunshine State. From HB 1199:
“‘A local government regulation, ordinance, code, rule, comprehensive plan, charter, or any other provision of law may not recognize or grant any legal rights to a plant, an animal, a body of water, or any other part of the natural environment that is not a person or political subdivision…or grant such person or political subdivision any specific rights relating to the natural environment not otherwise authorized in general law or specifically granted in the State Constitution.’”
With actual human rights being increasingly treated as dispensations from the government, rights given to swamps and such could easily trump actual human rights. A stand must be made now before this craziness becomes too normalized.
While opponents of abortion consider it to be legalized in utero homicide, a collapse of morals, and/or a tool of eugenics, its supports use such gushingly positive terminology as protecting “bodily autonomy”, being about “women’s rights”, or quite often as “reproductive justice” or “reproductive freedom”. But those last two terms, “reproductive justice” or “reproductive freedom”, are not only not synonymous, but are often at odds with each others.
For example, contraception is considered a right because it allows a woman to engage in reproductive acts without (usually) reproducing, thus having “freedom” regarding whether or not the reproductive act is fruitful or not. By some more stretched definition of “reproductive freedom”, abortion allows a woman to choose to not have a child (including in some cases where the child is already ex utero) despite the actual reproduction having become a fait accompli.
However, “reproductive justice” could necessitate that actual freedom over reproduction be curtailed to the point of forced sterilization. Case in point, a bill introduced in Alabama to mandate that men over fifty, or who already have three children, be forcibly sterilizedvia vasectomy… and that the man will be forced to pay for it.
“HB 238, filed by Rep. Rolanda Hollis, D-Birmingham, would require a man to undergo a vasectomy after the birth of his third biological child or within one month of his 50th birthday. The bill also says the procedure would be done at the man’s own expense.
“‘Under existing law, there are no restrictions on the reproductive rights of men,’ according to the text of the bill.
“Hollis said many opponents have seen her bill as ‘an outrageous overstep,’ but she counters ‘year after year the majority party continues to introduce new legislation that tries to dictate a woman’s body and her reproductive rights.’ Hollis calls her bill a means ‘to neutralize last year’s abortion ban bill,’ and to send a message that ‘men should not be legislating what women do with their bodies.’”
All juice; no seeds.
Aside from the obvious fact that males and females are biologically different, with reproductive organs being the primary and most important difference, this measure would outright eliminate actual reproductive freedom since it would robe one of the choice to reproduce, which is different from abortion, which terminated the successful reproductive act, or contraception, since we—both men and women—can choose to not engage in coitus (rape excepted, of course).
In reality, this is just an example of a trend from the Left to make easier, normalize, and if possible mandate things that they support while making harder, denormalize, and if possible ban things that they do not support. In this case, it is all about population control via “reproductive justice”.
And of course the Left wish for nothing more than to control populations.
As some may have noted, I’ve largely been absent from the blog for the past week and a half, as well as off Twitter all of last week.
I got a week-long ban on Twitter, which is now over, and decided to just take a week off of political stuff (aside from my “News of the Week” related review of the news), and will be back in full force next week.
Yet, while Maduro seems happy to stand up against Venezuelans, he doesn’t seem very capable of standing up against the foreign powers that are propping him up. Russian soldiers are actively involved in military missions, perhaps to protect their future interest in Venezuela’s oil company. Ironic, then, that Maduro and Chavez before him destroyed their country in order to keep a firm and exclusive nationalist grip on their oil industry. It has gotten so bad that a foreign ambassador has been made a member of the Venezuelan cabinet—Bolivar must be spinning in his grave.
Well this is novel: the Cuban ambassador was just made a member of the Venezuelan cabinet. Haven't really seen that kind of move before, even in the Stalin era in Eastern Europe. https://t.co/S9J6F5oqgz
In the hopes of encouraging a more civil, and illuminating, discourse, here is another episode of William F. Buckley, Jr.’s “Firing Line”.
Extremism can be either good or bad, and either portrayed as either bad or good. But extremism isn’t what it used to be, and ‘twould be interesting to contrast extremism today with extremism from over half-a-century ago.
Another “quick takes” on items where there is too little to say to make a complete article, but is still important enough to comment on.
The focus this time: Standing up and saying “No”.
First, a little mood music:
Children aren’t deemed capable of being responsible for themselves (outside of abortion), but are deemed mature enough to mess up their bodies on hormone blockers an plastic surgery… but perhaps not for much longer.
“A Cobb County lawmaker wants to make it a felony for medical professionals to help a minor with gender transition.
“State Rep. Ginny Ehrhart, R-Powder Springs, said the legislation aims to protect children from having irreversible procedures done when they are young. Current law requires a parent to consent to surgery or for a minor to be prescribed medication.
“While the bill is still being drafted, Ehrhart said Georgia medical providers who perform surgeries or administer or prescribe medications that assist minors with gender transition could be charged with a felony. The legislation would not affect doctors working with adults who seek to undergo gender transition.”
A full list of state proposals to protect children from transgender exploitation can be found here.