The Alabama Human Life Protection Act

The Alabama Human Life Protection Act, a controversial bill that criminalizes abortion and attempted abortion, was enacted on May 15th, 2019. This act categorizes abortion as homicide and a Class A felony while attempted abortion is now considered a Class C felony. Section 2 letter I, compare the casualties of the Holocaust, the Soviet Regime, and the Rwandan genocide to the estimated “50 million babies… aborted in the United States since Roe v. Wade passed in 1973.” The legislation also defines an unborn child, child, or person as “a human being, specifically including an unborn child in utero at any stage of development, regardless of viability.” It also defines a woman as “a female human being, whether or not she has reached the age of maturity”, (House Bill 314, section 3). One of the most problematic aspects of the bill includes the lack of exception for abortions in the case of impregnation through rape or incest. The passing of the law has resulted in backlash along with praise from those who agree with the legislation.

Not only is this bill incredibly heinous for its lack of empathy but for its lack of inclusion. HB 314 denies any person that is able to get pregnant the choice to terminate that pregnancy, but specifically protects women or “female” people from criminal charges if the mother’s life is at risk. While it is possible for any person of any gender to receive an abortion, this rhetoric does not allow the same protections for trans and non-binary folk, only cis-gender women. Ericka Hart, a queer Black femme, activist, and an accomplished teacher of sex education discusses the dangers that go beyond the bill itself. She states, “One day, people are sharing about abortion being a “women’s issue” – intentionally leaving out trans people and the next day, they are sharing about the death of Black trans women. If the only time you talk about trans existence is when we are gone, you aren’t helping”. Ericka’s studies and work focus on the systemic and historical events that allow for White supremacist, sexist, transphobic and homophobic bills to pass.

This bill will have a significant impact on poor minorities specifically when Black maternal death is a profound and prevalent issue, and currently at an all-time high. There is little to no access to contraception and proper sex education for the impoverished. While the wealthy and middle class can afford birth control, condoms and emergency contraceptives these products are not accessible to people without sufficient income or insurance. When rhetoric like “pro-life” is used it demonizes people who get abortions by implying that they are anti-life or pro-murder. The use of this language creates stigma for people who have already had abortions as well as those in need of an abortion. This stigma leads to shame and isolation which can end in lethal circumstances. To take away the right to a sterile and proper abortion puts countless lives at risk and puts immense financial stress on families. Prioritizing a life that has not yet begun over a life that has current meaningful existence and relationships is hypocritical. The right using the term “pro-life” is a manipulation tactic born out of the desperate need to maintain power and control.

The abortion ban in Alabama brings attention to a lot of systemic issues that plague many government bodies and society as a whole. It is important for the public to be educated correctly on whom these bills affect the most. Unfortunately, the attention tends to gravitate towards the most privileged and powerful leading to the silencing and erasure of marginalized voices. This ban will have negative effects on many and in some cases lead to life-threatening or lethal circumstances. In times like this, it is vital to prioritize those who face immediate danger in the rise of this ban. Audre Lorde, a Black, lesbian, poet, and educator stated, “The master’s tool will never dismantle the master’s house.” This quote remains relevant and impactful in the present. It can help to explain how powerful structures have maintained control and are able to pass an oppressive and dangerous bill like HB 314. If radical and revolutionary means are not taken society cannot progress and the marginalized will continue to suffer at the expense of our collective silence.

Ericka Hart: Twitter, Instagram 

Similar Read: Legal Attack on Women’s Rights to Choose (How Did We Get Here?)

Independent Responds to Conservative… Transgenger Ban Revisited

On August 29, 2017, LCR Contributor Right Army Veteran published an article about Trump’s decision to ban transgender service members. He suggested that both administrations (Obama and Trump) dropped the ball regarding the policy implementation and ban. He also mentioned costs as a driving factor for the ban.

“Military service members retire after 20 years and then collect benefits for a lifetime. That’s an expensive investment- especially if 2 years may make them non-deployable for surgery at a minimum, and for years after they continue with guaranteed medical needs and lifetime complications (and sanitary requirements) that may be difficult to ensure in the filthy, harsh business of war in dark places.”– Right Army Veteran

His full article can be viewed here: Transgender in the Military – A Case in Political Hijackings by Democrats and Republicans

I disagree…

This is a farce of epic proportions. Using medical costs as a reason to exclude a person from serving in the military is a coverup for bigotry and hate against a group of people too many are unwilling to fully understand. The medical costs excuse is a smokescreen. If the military really wanted to curb or prevent medical costs they wouldn’t allow our presidents to get us involved in unjust wars. Iraq and Afghanistan are already costing us $1 trillion, that’s with a T, in medical costs. And most veterans from those two wars aren’t even 40 years old yet. If it’s really about costs, then why not completely cut medical benefits after retirement? Find me a profession in the private sector in which merely retiring at any level provides healthcare benefits for you, your spouse, and family, until death. So let’s be honest, it’s probably not about the costs. Becuase if it was then the military wouldn’t spend $41.6 million annually on Viagra alone, which according to the Military Times analysis that figure is five times the estimated spend on transgender transition-related care.

 I could accept a policy of not covering active service members who wanted to have the elective surgery; however, this ban is a universal ban – no matter what, if you identify as transgender you’re not eligible for military service.

 If this ban stays in place, the irony would be noteworthy… We’d be the world’s freest nation, yet not everyone would be free to serve and defend it.

Want to read similar content from the Left, Center, Right? SUBSCRIBE for only $2/month.

Trump Bans Transgender People In U.S. Military

“What the Commander in Chief did yesterday was shameful. Yes, as a servicemember I am openly rebuking the Commander in Chief. An act of bigotry and discrimination is wrong, regardless who it comes from.” 

On July 26, 2017, President Donald Trump issued a ban on all transgender people from serving in the military. Trump is known for his love of banning and placing barriers on groups of people, so this isn’t too shocking. What is shocking is an all-out ban. One of the Obama administration’s last acts regarding military policy was the allowance of transgender people in the military and persons in the military to transition into a gender other than the one they originally entered the military as.

This move done by Trump flies in the face on a couple of fronts. It goes against candidate Donald Trump who in 2016 stated he would be a strong defender of the LGBT community. It also goes against President Trump by allowing a review of transgender recruiting enrollment into the military, which was slated to end in December 2017. Instead, Trump abruptly broke his campaign promise and ended his own administration’s plans.

Until this ban, the U.S. Military for the first time in its history was truly inclusive. Women could finally serve in combat roles, sexual orientation no longer mattered – we had finally arrived. Many will still say this nation has the greatest military representing the most diverse group of people on the planet. If this ruling stands that simply will not be true. To have any reservation of any group of people entering the military not based on universal standards regarding their ability to get the job done is meaningless, shameful, and discriminating.

The main justification Trump used was “tremendous medical costs and disruption,” which could also be applied to a pregnant woman or to any veteran on disability. Just for number’s sake, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are estimated to cost taxpayers nearly a $1 trillion dollars in healthcare costs alone. If nearly $1 trillion dollars spent on healthcare as a result of two wars isn’t a tremendous medical cost and disruption, I don’t know what is. Does this mean we can expect the Trump administration to withdraw military forces worldwide? Close bases stateside? Shrink the military budget to reflect pre-Reagan numbers? This ban just doesn’t make any sense.