Re: the EO putting fetal personhood in the anti-Trans executive order:
This is what I've been saying! Reproductive rights and Trans rights are the exact same issue, and that is bodily autonomy. Trump wants to control my body as a trans woman as he does want to control the womb of your cisgender female body! That's why I have my pfp like that. Because *Bodily Autonomy is Non-Negotiable!!!*
“Permanent contraception spiked after Roe was overturned—with a 95% increase in vasectomies and 70% more tubal sterilizations in Americans between 19 and 26 years old.”
Is anyone going to tell these people that at conception the sex is indeterminate? A clump of cells doesn’t have a sex or a gender. This all is so nuts.
Also, humans are born female and some are made male later (until they're identified as "male" and "female" at birth later, but as with my case and millions more others, that can change. 😉). So long story short, Trumpy basically made all humans female.
"The other anti-abortion move from the Trump administration yesterday was a bit sneakier: They carefully placed fetal personhood language in their anti-trans executive order. Remember, Trump signed an executive order declaring that there are only two sexes—a move to gut federal diversity programs and LGBTQ protections. But check out the language here:
(d) “Female” means a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the large reproductive cell.
(e) “Male” means a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the small reproductive cell."
I honestly cannot see why citing "conception" in any context promotes fetal personhood. Conception is an event in biology describing a biological event that is universal in animal sexual reproduction. To "conceive" is really a kind of spiritual term not really attributed to animals in general. But it doesn't really describe the object transformed by this.
The objects of contention in abortion rights is, again, the zygote, blastocyst, embryo and fetus.
What I don't understand is why the language describing sexes doesn't use the terms "sperm" or "ova" instead of "small and large reproductive cells".
But this distracts from this presidential action that is applied against the transgender movement. It is massive. A link to the actual document here:
Because they clearly don't know/understand how biological science actually works. They should have used the words fertilization, fertilized, implanted, egg, ova, and/or sperm, but they're a bunch of religious obsessed people who would rather write a bunch of gobbledygook than actually understand anything.
They believe that at "conception" or more accurately fertilization it is a person which is their whole deal with fetal personhood. They've also (likely) worded it vaguely on purpose so that they can add to, detract, and/or further mislead the general public w/more inane rhetoric.
Attacking transgender peeps is only a part of their whole war on anyone that is different and/or vulnerable.
I wonder if this legislation is supported by healthcare corporations that want to save money by avoiding the extensive treatment it can take for premies to survive.
We hear nothing about the financial burden put on families due to the mandating that healthcare be denied. And of course mandating forced c sections just raises the bill.
I am one of those 19-26 year olds getting permanent sterilization. In a couple of weeks I am getting my tubes removed at the age of 22. It is exciting and empowering, but at the same time it's horrifying I even have to consider it.
My mouth dropped open reading the Vermont lawsuit. It's inexplicable that DCF would take the actions they have - unless something is hidden. Does the DCF have an arrangement with Lund to procure adoptable infants? This reads like the accounts of Chilean or Argentinian women who had their babies stolen from them under the military dictatorships. I hope AV is recompensed millions of dollars.
1) At conception, sex does not exist. Some say that we are all conceived as female and that developing down a male pathway requires intervention in that development. This isn't technically correct. No one is female at conception either, and without specific developmental cues the traits we associate with femaleness never come into being. (No embryo has vulva or ovaries, for instance.) So when you mention that the ExO declares sex final at conception, it's important to remember that that isn't just a nod toward the anti-abortion crowd. They're willing to say entirely bullshit things that sabotage Trump's own anti-trans actions just to put their anti-abortion activism on slightly firmer ground. I'm trans, and I'm not trying to downplay how much they hate me, but I think this says something about their priorities, that they're more willing to fuck up their anti-trans efforts to more effectively attack reproductive rights than they are willing to compromise RR to enhance their anti-trans attacks.
2) Virginia doesn't require the approval of an amendment to the state constitution in consecutive YEARS. It requires such approval in different legislative sessions separated by an intervening general election. If they had passed this for the first time last year, they would still have had to wait until 2026 to pass it again. (Virginia elects their lege members in odd years, not even, so the entire Virginia House of Delegates is up for re/election this November.) This might be a silly little point to make, given that you're still correct about 2026 being the earliest this could go before voters, but I think it's good to have the right info out there. For instance, if it took the Virginia General Assembly (its House and Senate combined) until 2027 to pass the amendment again, it would not matter that 2026 passed with no action since it's not successive years that's the requirement, but successive legislatures, and the 2027 Virginia Lege will be the same one as the 2026 Virginia Lege.
I feel like even this SCOTUS would balk at a law that lets the state take a child without a warrant or a very prompt hearing. Surprised it hasn’t been challenged.
I cannot find the removal of reproductiverights.gov being removed in any news channel. The media is just as guilty in all of this. They don't do a goddamn thing.
To reinforce your criticism of the media, though it's a different issue you also won't find discussion of Trump cancelling all licenses for offshore wind power development.
That's a huge deal that appears to impact even just-completed projects if they haven't started selling their energy to the grid yet. It certainly impacts developments that are in the process of construction but not completed. And, of course, it's complicated, because it's possible to build one turbine and connect it to the grid and start selling its energy while you're still building the next one. There's confusion as to how this will affect developments that are selling electricity but also not yet completed. There's so much to cover there -- as much as with reproductive rights -- and yet the media is nowhere to be found.
I think the onslaught of offensive executive orders was hard for MSM to keep up with. By design. But I"ve been sometimes disappointed with NY TImes's coverage. Even today the use of the word "muscular" to describe yesterday's actions by the new administration. Really? "Muscular?" Too weak. They also described his being the first felon as president as a "distinction." I wrote a comment to them asking for a better word, like "status" or something and they didn't accept the comment.
I agree, they are still talking like this isn’t absolutely bonkers town which pisses me off. Journalists need to start challenging people like Jessica mentioned. I was listening to NPR for a few minutes after the inauguration speech was done and the journalist was interviewing someone from South Carolina who sounded learned and non unhinged say I think Trump is going to bring unity to the country and the journalist says thank you for speaking with us. Wtf? How about so Trump said this this and this, how does that promote unity in your mind? These people are brainwashed and under a thrall. There’s no more both sides. That left a while ago. It’s time we start acting like it.
They are forever sneakin. I’m preparing for endless distractions. Whenever there is one, look a little deeper to see what’s being signed late at night when everyone’s asleep.
Jesus, Jessica….I don’t know how you continue to do this work! But I am so grateful to you…we would never know about these awful things until it is too late (and it still might be). Thank you.
Re: the EO putting fetal personhood in the anti-Trans executive order:
This is what I've been saying! Reproductive rights and Trans rights are the exact same issue, and that is bodily autonomy. Trump wants to control my body as a trans woman as he does want to control the womb of your cisgender female body! That's why I have my pfp like that. Because *Bodily Autonomy is Non-Negotiable!!!*
“Permanent contraception spiked after Roe was overturned—with a 95% increase in vasectomies and 70% more tubal sterilizations in Americans between 19 and 26 years old.”
CONGRATULATIONS, GOP, YOU’RE NOT HAVING A BABY!
🫠
Is anyone going to tell these people that at conception the sex is indeterminate? A clump of cells doesn’t have a sex or a gender. This all is so nuts.
Also, humans are born female and some are made male later (until they're identified as "male" and "female" at birth later, but as with my case and millions more others, that can change. 😉). So long story short, Trumpy basically made all humans female.
"The other anti-abortion move from the Trump administration yesterday was a bit sneakier: They carefully placed fetal personhood language in their anti-trans executive order. Remember, Trump signed an executive order declaring that there are only two sexes—a move to gut federal diversity programs and LGBTQ protections. But check out the language here:
(d) “Female” means a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the large reproductive cell.
(e) “Male” means a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the small reproductive cell."
I honestly cannot see why citing "conception" in any context promotes fetal personhood. Conception is an event in biology describing a biological event that is universal in animal sexual reproduction. To "conceive" is really a kind of spiritual term not really attributed to animals in general. But it doesn't really describe the object transformed by this.
The objects of contention in abortion rights is, again, the zygote, blastocyst, embryo and fetus.
What I don't understand is why the language describing sexes doesn't use the terms "sperm" or "ova" instead of "small and large reproductive cells".
But this distracts from this presidential action that is applied against the transgender movement. It is massive. A link to the actual document here:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/defending-women-from-gender-ideology-extremism-and-restoring-biological-truth-to-the-federal-government/
Because they clearly don't know/understand how biological science actually works. They should have used the words fertilization, fertilized, implanted, egg, ova, and/or sperm, but they're a bunch of religious obsessed people who would rather write a bunch of gobbledygook than actually understand anything.
They believe that at "conception" or more accurately fertilization it is a person which is their whole deal with fetal personhood. They've also (likely) worded it vaguely on purpose so that they can add to, detract, and/or further mislead the general public w/more inane rhetoric.
Attacking transgender peeps is only a part of their whole war on anyone that is different and/or vulnerable.
@ErinInTheMorning I hope you’re here!
This Vermonter thanking you for the heads up. On it.
I wonder if this legislation is supported by healthcare corporations that want to save money by avoiding the extensive treatment it can take for premies to survive.
Again, I wonder who pays for unnecessary c-sections? The patients?
We hear nothing about the financial burden put on families due to the mandating that healthcare be denied. And of course mandating forced c sections just raises the bill.
I am one of those 19-26 year olds getting permanent sterilization. In a couple of weeks I am getting my tubes removed at the age of 22. It is exciting and empowering, but at the same time it's horrifying I even have to consider it.
My mouth dropped open reading the Vermont lawsuit. It's inexplicable that DCF would take the actions they have - unless something is hidden. Does the DCF have an arrangement with Lund to procure adoptable infants? This reads like the accounts of Chilean or Argentinian women who had their babies stolen from them under the military dictatorships. I hope AV is recompensed millions of dollars.
I was reminded of the Catholic nuns who sold the babies of young women who had been raped and put in homes to 'care for them.'
Thank you for this.
A couple quick notes, though:
1) At conception, sex does not exist. Some say that we are all conceived as female and that developing down a male pathway requires intervention in that development. This isn't technically correct. No one is female at conception either, and without specific developmental cues the traits we associate with femaleness never come into being. (No embryo has vulva or ovaries, for instance.) So when you mention that the ExO declares sex final at conception, it's important to remember that that isn't just a nod toward the anti-abortion crowd. They're willing to say entirely bullshit things that sabotage Trump's own anti-trans actions just to put their anti-abortion activism on slightly firmer ground. I'm trans, and I'm not trying to downplay how much they hate me, but I think this says something about their priorities, that they're more willing to fuck up their anti-trans efforts to more effectively attack reproductive rights than they are willing to compromise RR to enhance their anti-trans attacks.
2) Virginia doesn't require the approval of an amendment to the state constitution in consecutive YEARS. It requires such approval in different legislative sessions separated by an intervening general election. If they had passed this for the first time last year, they would still have had to wait until 2026 to pass it again. (Virginia elects their lege members in odd years, not even, so the entire Virginia House of Delegates is up for re/election this November.) This might be a silly little point to make, given that you're still correct about 2026 being the earliest this could go before voters, but I think it's good to have the right info out there. For instance, if it took the Virginia General Assembly (its House and Senate combined) until 2027 to pass the amendment again, it would not matter that 2026 passed with no action since it's not successive years that's the requirement, but successive legislatures, and the 2027 Virginia Lege will be the same one as the 2026 Virginia Lege.
Thanks again for everything you do.
I feel like even this SCOTUS would balk at a law that lets the state take a child without a warrant or a very prompt hearing. Surprised it hasn’t been challenged.
I cannot find the removal of reproductiverights.gov being removed in any news channel. The media is just as guilty in all of this. They don't do a goddamn thing.
To reinforce your criticism of the media, though it's a different issue you also won't find discussion of Trump cancelling all licenses for offshore wind power development.
That's a huge deal that appears to impact even just-completed projects if they haven't started selling their energy to the grid yet. It certainly impacts developments that are in the process of construction but not completed. And, of course, it's complicated, because it's possible to build one turbine and connect it to the grid and start selling its energy while you're still building the next one. There's confusion as to how this will affect developments that are selling electricity but also not yet completed. There's so much to cover there -- as much as with reproductive rights -- and yet the media is nowhere to be found.
NY Times just posted front page lead story on it.
Ooh, they did? That's excellent. 12 hours ago I couldn't find anything.
The Boston Globe covered the cancellation of wind projects:
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2025/01/21/science/trump-offshore-wind-executive-order/?s_campaign=breakingnews:newsletter
I think the onslaught of offensive executive orders was hard for MSM to keep up with. By design. But I"ve been sometimes disappointed with NY TImes's coverage. Even today the use of the word "muscular" to describe yesterday's actions by the new administration. Really? "Muscular?" Too weak. They also described his being the first felon as president as a "distinction." I wrote a comment to them asking for a better word, like "status" or something and they didn't accept the comment.
I agree, they are still talking like this isn’t absolutely bonkers town which pisses me off. Journalists need to start challenging people like Jessica mentioned. I was listening to NPR for a few minutes after the inauguration speech was done and the journalist was interviewing someone from South Carolina who sounded learned and non unhinged say I think Trump is going to bring unity to the country and the journalist says thank you for speaking with us. Wtf? How about so Trump said this this and this, how does that promote unity in your mind? These people are brainwashed and under a thrall. There’s no more both sides. That left a while ago. It’s time we start acting like it.
They are forever sneakin. I’m preparing for endless distractions. Whenever there is one, look a little deeper to see what’s being signed late at night when everyone’s asleep.
Dropped a polite email to the Texas Trib reporter highlighting your observations re:his interview. Hoping for polite response. No snark intended!
Thank you for keeping at your reporting. 🤯🧘♀️Though you deserve self care too.
Jesus, Jessica….I don’t know how you continue to do this work! But I am so grateful to you…we would never know about these awful things until it is too late (and it still might be). Thank you.