(Cross-posted on Phillybits)
The SCOTUS recently ruled in favor of military recruiters presence on college campus' funded by federal money.
The Supreme Court of the United States voted unanimously Monday to uphold the Solomon Amendment, which requires colleges accepting federal money to allow military recruiters on campus.
What were the details of the case?
Complainants in Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights (FAIR), et al. argued the Solomon Amendment was unconstitutional and overstepped universities' First Amendment rights.
Since 1993, the U.S. military has been following the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, allowing homosexuals to join military ranks on the condition they are not open about their sexuality.
For this reason, many law schools became venues of debate in recent years over the issue. Additionally, many legal pundits have maintained the law violates freedoms of speech and association by forcing universities to permit military recruitment, lest they lose federal dollars.
If the US military can get away with what is arguably a discriminatory practice with regards to recruiting homosexuals, under the cover that so long as nobody asks and nobody tells everything remains kosher, why can't the same type of practice be applied to women and abortions?
It seems these days that everyone wants to push their point of view onto the rest of society. Whether it's the argument about a right to privacy or the right to do to one's body as one wishes, or if the argument is about whether a blastula can be considered a human being (see Wingnut Petri Dish), if someone's sexual preference is basically nobody's business when it comes to defending this country, why is it anyone's business whether or not they choose to have a medical procedure done?
This whole argument can of course spread into the contraceptive arena where there are also attempts currently underway to prevent or reduce the ability for women to get a hold of said birth control, whether it's actually for birth control, or any number of preventive health reasons such as cysts and acne. For a good background on that topic, I suggest taking a look at Maryscott Oconnor's diary, Christofascist Neocon Zombie Brigade on Patrol.
...Here's what's going on, people: Blunt and the people behind this bullshit law have deliberately conflated the "abortion pill," RU-486, with the "Morning After Pill." The fact is, pharmacists do not dispense RU-486. Doctors do. But by deliberately confusing the two in the wording, they're getting what they want: a law allowing pharmacists to refuse to dispense birth control (for that is what the "morning after pill" IS) without legal ramifications.
I am prescribed oral contraceptives by my physician. In my case, they serve a dual purpose; even if I didn't need it as birth control, I'd still be taking it because, in my case (and it is the case for many, many women), taking oral contraceptives greatly reduces the build-up of cysts in my uterus and ovaries. When I don't take the Pill, in a short time my menstrual cycle is erratic and eventually I experience great pain (to say nothing of the inconvenience of bleeding for sometimes three weeks straight)...
To get back to the main topic here, though, what's wrong with a Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy on abortion? If being gay is nobody's business as far as defending the nation is concerned, why is having a certain medical procedure, whether it's medical or chemical, or related to health of an adult or ultimate birth, anyone's business but the person who is specifically involved?