Jill FilipovicGeverifieerd account

And while we’re all talking about rights that aren’t listed in the Constitution nor what the founders intended, here’s a good one: the idea that every American has an individual right to own masses of fireaems.

Might I recommend reading the 14th Amendment, which is pretty solid for us equal protection fans (the 9th is also pretty good on the question of whether rights must be enumerated in the constitution for Americans to hold them).https://twitter.com/asymmetricinfo/status/1012717578752577536 …

And I'm not sure you can strike down Roe by deciding that a right to privacy doesn't exist, and continue to uphold the many other cases that hinged on the constitutional right to privacy (cases legalizing contraception, some pretty normal consensual sex acts, etc).

So those are basically your two choices: Either you prosecute women who have abortions, or you treat pregnant women like moral and emotional children under the law. That's the #prolife vision.

What they will say is that they want to prosecute the doctors and not women, who are victims. But that doesn't square. If you hire a hitman to kill your four-year-old, no one says you're a victim. (Also, prosecuting doctors for helping desperate women is not great!)

Anti-abortion forces always say they won't prosecute women. This is undermined by the fact that they already prosecute women who self-induce their own abortions. And if abortion is murder and a fetus is a person deserving of state protection, well...

To clarify: The big critique of Roe here is that the court invented a right to privacy. But that right was used earlier to strike down a law barring contraceptive use in Griswold. It was later used to strike down a Texas law outlawing sodomy. It's not just at issue in Roe.

Some questions here: 1. If you're hoping the court does away with the right to privacy that gave us Roe (abortion), does that mean we get rid of Griswold (contraception) and Lawrence (same-sex intercourse) as well? 2. If abortion is murder, should women face criminal penalties?https://twitter.com/philipaklein/status/1012692633377009665 …

We cycle through these conversations so often. What if a man punching his girlfriend were as shocking and usual, and treated with as much seriousness, as a man punching a senator or a famous painting or even just a random stranger on the street?

I wish that when women talked about online harassment / street harassment / all the indignities that quickly segue to real threats that come with simply being a woman in public (and virtual) space, we weren't laughed off or met with a serious nod then gently pushed to the side.

And so I am glad that we are finally talking about how every dude who shot up a school / street / club / newspaper had violence against women in his past. That's so important. But also, I wish violence against women was enough for outrage and action in and of itself.

But when it's "just" harassment of women, or violence against women, it's kinda-sorta expected and so not such a big deal, or it's "private" and so not such a big deal (just ask Jeff Sessions why domestic violence victims don't qualify for asylum - private violence, he said).

Writers - and feminist writers in particular - have been sounding the alarm on this for a long time: on "incels," men's rights activists, men who behave in fundamentally aggressive and anti-social ways to women. We've been saying: This is a problem. Please see it.