Recently I have seen the above phrase used in the context of benefits reforms, it pisses me off because of the implication that women who have not been raped and children who are not a product of rape are fair game. Still though I understand that it's worth pointing out that women often are not in control of when and how they get pregnant. So over all I gave it pass. Then I saw the same sort of reporting again today and it really fucked me off.
It's fucking appalling that any man can dictate what medical procedures his wife can have. That's enough to be appalled about, it's fucking outrageous. You could have the most loving consensual sexual relationship in the world, it doesn't make it any more justifiable. Do we need to frame it in the most extreme way possible to garner outrage for this? It's this what its come to?
I have to point out that of course the rapist clause is fucking despicable but I find it incredibly troubling that that is what they have chosen to focus on in the headline. Obviously they didn't think "US husbands allowed to stop wives accessing termination" isn't shocking enough. Which... what the fuck?
It's all despicable. The lack of sex education and birth control that leads to so many unwanted pregnancies. The delaying tactics to try and push women to leave it too late. The idea that women's bodies belong to their husbands, the state or a God they may not believe in. And the rape clause. It's all shit.
I live in Canada and one of my friends is talking about setting up an abortion clinic on the border. So that all these poor refugees from sanity can come and get the medical care they need. No doubt they will stop women coming here.