Texas Republican nominee for Lt. Governor and “Pro-Life” and “personhood” promoter, Dan Patrick has outdone himself with “loving Latinos” even though, according to him, undocumented Mexicans are one giant “illegal invasion.”
I had to step back and think about his "personhood" platform for a moment and how it intersected with to his stance on "illegals." It sounded too polarized. One side of his mouth says he's "pro-life/fetus" and in the same breath, it seems "illegals" can kiss his butt when it comes to being "people." Not very "pro-life" or Christian, if you ask me. So I did what most people do when approaching a subject they are passionate about: write it from their (my own) perspective.
It turns out, there is something to argue when these two words come together and it is good news for undocumented women (and men)! I'll explain.
First the whole “illegal” verbiage.
For Dan Patrick to say undocumented, Mexican immigrants are “illegal” is irony at its best since it was the White “thieves” who stole the land he governs now, with “Manifest Destiny” as justification. Aviva Chompsky, daughter of Noam Chompsky and professor at Salem State University, talks about how the word “illegal” came to be, in her book, “Undocumented: How Immigration Became Illegal.” In it, she writes that by making a whole group of people “illegal” in the United States, it denies them, automatically, the rights, privileges and therefore, protections of the United States.
Now the “personhood” thing…
For the conservative GOP (and Dan Patrick) through their support of "right to life" institutions to say to me, as a pro-choice woman, that somehow I am promoting murder because said unborn fetus is a “person” from conception, entitled to all the rights and privileges of the United States is both laughable and sickening, considering all their violent euphemisms. However, since I believe in consistency of an argument, I am calling Dan, and his conservative cronies, out.
They say if a dog bites and grabs a hold of your hand, and won’t let go, instead of fighting it for your appendage, shove it down his/her throat HARD and give him/her the whole thing…the dog won’t like being choked and will let go. Since Dan is a God-fearing Christian and mouthpiece (blowhard) of the GOP in Texas politics, I am going to tell him why he, or his conservative friends, shouldn’t be calling our undocumented men and women “illegal” anymore, using his conservative logic, the Constitution, and an extreme example of Arizona’s attempt at a twenty week ban on abortion. As a matter of fact, I think undocumented people should be jumping for joy as there may be a loophole towards their path to becoming a citizen.
What is “personhood” to so-called “Pro-Lifers”?
“Personhood” as defined by www.personhoodusa.com (which is representative of all personhood definitions):
“When the term “person” is applied to a particular class of human beings, it is an affirmation of their individual rights. In other words, to be a person is to be protected by a series of God-given rights and constitutional guarantees such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
This just terrifies us pro-choicers:
“This terrifies the pro-abortion foes!”
Because:
“They know that if we clearly define the preborn baby as a person, they will have the same right to life as all Americans do!”
Now comes the question we all apparently “beg” for:
“This then also begs the question, is every human being a person?”
Oh my god! Did they discover the secret document that untangles the “when life begins” question? Does it have to do with the Illuminati? Or did an ancient scroll reveal its secrets about the origin of life only to crumble shortly after soaking its knowledge through the skin of their fingertips…and it was caught it all on video?
“There is a very real sense in which the need to answer this second question is, in itself, an absurdity. If you look up the word “person” in your average dictionary (we’ll use Webster’s), you’ll find something like this: ‘Person n. A human being.’”
Somebody drop the mic, as the answer to life’s equality and justice can be found in the dictionary. Well I feel pretty lacking in “Webster Dictionary’s definitive guide to the meaning of all things.” I actually thought I found the meaning in Depeche Mode’s song, “
People are People,” but this is way better! That definition just says it all, as it has worked for the Native Americans, Black people, women, children and now “illegal” immigrants and everyone else who isn’t a White man, throughout the ages!
Don’t forget the expert:
“After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being. It is no longer a matter of taste or opinion…it is plain experimental evidence. Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception.”
Dr. Jerome Lejeune, “Father of Modern Genetics”
Why go to the trouble of quoting one other expert, when you have Webster’s as a source? Why shift to a philosophical debate now?
Now combine the definitions and voilá:
“A person, simply put, is a human being. This fact should be enough. The intrinsic humanity of unborn children, by definition, makes them persons, and should, therefore, guarantee their protection under the law.”
And the reason why they fight so hard to declare fetuses a “person”:
“Personhood holds the key to filling the “Blackmun Hole,” a startling admission in the Roe v. Wade majority opinion.”
What is the Blackmun Hole?:
"Acknowledging the unborn as legal persons with basic human rights through personhood amendments and legislation has the promise of filling the “Blackmun Hole,” a shocking admission by the Supreme Court justice who wrote the majority decision for Roe v. Wade that if personhood was recognized, the arguments for abortion would be invalid. Justice Harry Blackmun writes in his 1973 decision that, “If personhood is established, the case [for abortion] collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would be guaranteed."
Arguing “personhood” in 1973 didn’t take into account the immigration debate of today. In other words, when one argues that a fetus is a life, and declare it a “person” you argue for every single fetus, not just the ones who are "attached" American citizens as the fetus is a separate entity from the mother, they way they phrase it. Therefore would it not be illegal to deport “fetuses,” of undocumented immigrants? Are they not now “American?” Here’s why:
Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Declaring a fetus a person automatically enacts the Fourteenth Amendment, even though it hasn’t been born, does it not? So why is Dan calling them "illegal?"
Hold on it gets better….
Then there is this pesky little Arizona Bill signed into law, HB 2036:
Governor Jan Brewer signed HB 2036, “The Mother’s Health and Safety Act,” into law on April 12, 2012. The act restricted abortions performed 20 weeks after the mother's last menstruation or later on the grounds that such abortions are more likely to injure the mother and that an unborn baby at 20 weeks' gestation is able to feel pain. The ACLU promptly filed suit.
(And speaking of a lawsuit, do I detect an angle from which to bring suit against the state governments?) The “20 week” part was struck down by an appeals court (the rest of the Bill is intact), but there is still a question about the original definition and now the implication of when life should be preserved. The mindset of the GOP in Arizona (and others) considers life to begin from the “mother’s last menstruation” which means “the first day of her period” in medical terms. That part was not debated. The way I see it, if the conservatives want to take that road, once undocumented women are on American soil, they are now entitled to all rights and protections of the United States and are automatically considered citizens through their female reproductive organs not just their naturalized fetuses. Why? Because you have just declared it a 'life' with all the rights an privileges of a
person..get it? And now their husbands have a way to become citizens because they are now married to U.S. Citizens. I am only arguing what they are trying to impose, so what’s the problem?
They say beauty can be found in anything if you look hard enough. It seems to me that a verbal “Pandora’s Box” has been opened here. The issue of at least all “illegal” immigrant women obtaining automatic citizenship seems to have received a unique ally because the intent is to go as far as to protect their reproductive systems as if it were a “person.” As I said, based on the definition of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment one could argue that all reproductive systems are U.S. citizens because they have been declared “people” once in the United States. Since they are attached to an actual human being (a person), it would only make sense to use this loophole and declare the the undocumented person a U.S. Citizen. And since the law cannot discriminate between reproductive systems, young and old would be protected alike. After all, the argument isn’t for protecting just U.S. women, these people are arguing for the protection of ALL life. (The “Global Gag Rule” is proof enough of this).
I consider myself a “transnational feminist” as my focus goes beyond borders to include all women, with a concentration of women along the U.S.-Mexico border. It’s what I know: “La Frontera” (the border). I see the plight of women coming “from across.” As a U.S. citizen who is Latina and Lipan Apache Indian, whose generations go back thousands of years in this area, I consider that “Frontera” air, water and land the sweat, blood and bones of my prior generations who lived and died there. My point is, I take many things quite personally when it comes to talking about the people who, as my brother says, “chewed the same dirt as me.” We, as women, have changed our identity for our future generations, would fight and die for our children, and raised families almost single-handedly. Different battle, same war on Women. Too may lines crossed to turn back now.
Personally, I hate the way the terms “personhood” and “illegals” are used by Dan and the GOP to push some bigoted agenda. However, if you’re going to use them, then be prepared for a battle of semantics...in other words…
My figurative hand is down your throat, chew it up or let it go.
In other news:
Maya Angelou is remembered at a Memorial service in her honor....
We lost a great poet and friend of the feminist and Civil Rights Movement. I can only quote SisterSong's, The Goose Story:
Next fall when you see geese heading south for the winter flying along in a "V" formation, you might be interested in knowing what science has discovered about why they fly that way. It has been learned that as each bird flaps its wings, it creates an uplift for the bird immediately following. By flying in a "V" formation, the whole flock adds at least 71% greater flying range than if each bird flew on its own. People who share common direction and sense of community can get where they are going quicker and easier, because they are traveling on the thrust of one another.
When a goose falls out of formation, she suddenly feels the draft and resistance of trying to go it alone, and quickly gets into formation to take advantage of the lifting power of the bird immediately in front. If we have as much sense as a goose, we will stay in formation with those who are headed the same way we are going.
When the lead goose gets tired, she rotates back in the wing and another goose flies point. It pays to take turns doing hard jobs.
The geese honk from behind to encourage those up front to keep up their speed. An encouraging word goes a long way.
Finally, when a goose gets sick, or is wounded by a gun shot and falls out, two geese fall out of formation and follow her until she is either able to fly or until she is dead, then they launch out on their own or with another formation to catch up with the group. If we have the sense of a goose, we will stand by each other like that. -Author Unknown
Republican Senator, Tom Coburn said that POW Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl's condition appeared not be sick, but drugged, as he has seen it as a [OB/GYN] doctor, implying that the only patients he's seen this condition in is apparently pregnant women and pap smear patients.
Ohio Republican, John Becker is proposing a bill, HB351, which would ban insurance policies from covering abortion services, "including drugs and devices," especially IUDs, because he feels they are "the same as an abortion." Just his "personal view" as he is "not a doctor."
Shocker of the day: A Hitler quote was found on a billboard in Auburn, Alabama...family values promoted the way they know how. It has been removed since, but the damage is done.