Smart Bitches Trashy Books | All of the romance, none of the bullshit.

OMG, what a fantastic idea. I will do everything in my power to make this as big as the Santorum thing.

What an ass.

I DO NOT UNDERSTAND why the Democrats have not been jumping all over these kinds of statements and sentiments (and not with the weak inanity of those “Sam Alito was evil because he was a member of CAP” comments during the confirmation hearings).  Someone please explain to me how the Right has gotten so many passes on absolutely outrageous stuff!

Jaysus!  Another reason to love this site!  I guess it does take a “Smart Bitch” to get the ball rolling.  You’ve got my vote!

Gari

This is amazing!  I definitely support the napoli scale concept.  My question: will linking from a lj entry register on Google?

Heh. To Napoli someone.
I like it. At least as far as my end goes, consider it spread.

Just when you think it can’t get any worse, it does.

*Sigh*

Just what the world needs, another religious bigoted idiot.  I’d like to know whatever happened to the good old fashioned devil worshippers, I’m pretty sure they were more humanitarian than some of these freaks. Sigh.

Calling him an asshat is an insult to the “real” asshats.  Seriously, he’s in a class by himself.

There needs to be another term for him—

Uberasshat?

Excellent - let us know when the UD entry is up for voting. :^)

It’s too bad he’s can’t be Napolied.

Er… feeling a little lost, where do we link?

Also this could be entered on Wikipedia. I’m on it.

Uhuh. Imagine what a woman would have to go through to prove that she was even a candidate for napoliation. As in, Miss, your skirt makes me question your napoliworthiness.

Okay, I’ll admit that I’m struggling here.  On the one hand, I love the satiric way in which Candy’s coinage reveals the vicimizing power of Napoli’s language and his appalling exploitation of the virgin/whore dichotomy.  But I keep feeling that we’re replicating the woman-as-victim part of that equation, rather than sending the consequences right back to Napoli.  What am I missing here that I can’t reconcile this?

Sadly, I don’t think Senator Napoli COULD be napolied. I assume he’s married and, therefore, not a virgin. Also, even he would admit he’s not saving his anus for anyone. So he could be brutally sodomized, raped so thoroughly that he required massive internal stitching, and still. . . not napolied. Sorry, Bill. :down:

Yes, because you know, only virgins suffer during a rape. The rest of us are all whores asking for it.

His attitude (which is sadly quite prevalent of late and back in the seventeenth century where it belongs) makes my skin crawl.

I’ll post the link at my blog when you put it up. The man consorts with roaches.

Plus, you guys totally know that a woman can’t get pregnant unless she enjoys it. Duh.

You can borrow my b0xx0rs, if you really want ‘em.

It’s done: My first Wikipedia entry. Complete with linky goodness.

>>This latter statement led reproductive-freedom advocates to define Napoli as. . .<<

Oh, FUCK, that is AWESOME! Though I would suggest that it be "women's-rights advocates" or just "decent human beings". I'd imagine even pro-lifers could imagine a scenario where a non-virgin could possibly be raped.

It must be such a comfort to Senator Napoli that his little old grandma could never really be raped. Grandma’s a dirty whore who loves forcible penetration just like the rest of us who’ve put out.

I’m afraid the Wikipedia article was flagged almost immediately, and the good bits deleted. It might be possible to get it entered under a less direct title (i.e., “The Napoli controversy” - that’s what they did for Rick Santorum - but that might require that this movement gain more momentum first.).

As for how else to bring this back to Napoli, I don’t know that there is a way. Except, of course, to vote him out of office - that’s the traditional remedy for errant politicians. But his constituents presumably feel quite differently - he may well be faithfully representing their views - so that will be hard. That’s the problem with democracy, isn’t it - that it’s rule by the people?

(Speaking of which, I still have a half-finished response to your political debate sitting on my home computer. It got long, and I had to go to class...)

Man, but I am seeing red right now.  Knowing S. Dakota was doing this has had me pissed off for the last few days, but the Governor’s little comment just sent me into orbit.

So if a female is raped but wasn’t a religious virgin she doesn’t deserve access to a safe and legal abortion?  Are we really back to the era where the shame goes to the woman and not on the asshole that violated her?

So...needless to say, spreading the word seems like the least I can do.

Okay, thought I would say that I am a “pro-lifer”, but I think this guy is a massive tool. What an ass.
Just because you are pro-life doesn’t mean you have no compassion for rape victims. I hope this guy loses his seat.

This guy is the very definition of a tool. That he could say this out loud and not be thrown out of office shows us how far we have to go. I would burn my bra- but it’s a really nice one and I think parts of it would melt versus burn. That leaves us no choice but to VOTE

The question in this particular case, of course, is whether abortion can be viewed as an actual right.

According to Roe v. Wade, our right as women is that of privacy, and it’s located—at least by the Supreme Court in that case—in the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.  But here’s the rub(s):  there is still a big debate over whether privacy is a fundamental right (i.e. Constitutionally protected), since it doesn’t actually appear in the Constitution.  Further, there are those who believe that the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment should be limited to race, since it is a Reconstruction amendment.  Even beyond that, Roe itself set the bar, so to speak, at “viability,” pretty much dividing the pregnancy into trimesters for the purpose of marking the limits of a woman’s privacy, allowing that as the pregnancy progressed (with viability at 28 weeks, according to the Court), the balance between the individual woman’s right to privacy and the state interest in a)the woman’s health and later b) the life of the fetus MAY swing more toward the states and their right to limit the circumstances under which women cannot have an abortion (within an undue burden standard).

The really ironic thing, IMO, is that (from what I’ve read) abortion was cmmonly practiced in the American colonies, and if a women terminated a pregnancy herbally before the “quickening” (i.e. through the first trimester), it wasn’t frowned upon.  It was only when midwifery succumbed to the pressure of male-dominated “professional” medicine that the practice was curtailed (and then later by health and sanitation concerns).

A few years ago, Christopher Hitchens wrote an article in Vanity Fair arguing that the right to choose is embraced by too many political wives (including Republican wives) to ever be in serious jeopardy in this country, but I do worry, not only because of the increasing power given to states in some areas (it’s interesting to see the areas in which state’s rights seem to prevail and those where the federal power is still privileged).  More, I am concerned about the overall cultural backlash against women’s continued crawl toward equality, and if anyone watched the Alito confirmation hearings, some of the senatorial comments really kind of scared me.  What really pisses me off is the suggestion that any sane woman is actually pro-abortion.  NO ONE I know wants to be in the position to make that choice, but many of us sure as hell want the power and the protection to make it if we have to.  Personally, I’ve always thought that if men had children, abortion would be legal, state subsidized, and inclusive of a nice, cushy spa stay with milage points on the credit card.

One thing that frustrates me about Napoli’s comments is that they reflect so badly on the strides women have made in rape law, from the pre-80s requirement of substantial resistance to the 80s and 90s shift to non-consent.  But still, rape laws are relatively inconsistent, with some states requiring more in the way of a woman’s resistance than others.  And marital rape has been criminalized for less than a generation!

I liked Sara’s invocation of the word “napolizer” the best, I think, because it keeps the ickiness on him, rather on the women (and girls!) who are the victim of rape (and who have already been tainted by his words).

According to Napoli, only young, unmarried virgins who are religious should dare ask.  I wonder if their choice of religion makes a difference?  Are devout young, virgin Muslim girls eligible?  And I wonder how this is proven?  Okay, if you can quote at least fifty verses of scripture, and if there’s a record you went to church 52 times a year, and if you wear a lot of religious paraphernalia, AND, if you can prove you were a virgin before you were brutally raped and sodomized, we’ll give your request consideration.

Aw, hell, it’s no use sermonizing, or getting hysterical about it.  (Although I do it anyway, quite frequently.) This case will wind up in the Supreme Court, likely after another of Bush’s picks have been added, and Roe will be overturned.

Save those coat hangers, girls!

post 1

post 2

done and done. people like napoli make me ill. i’ll have this info posted in at least 20 other places before the night’s out, and i’ll be bugging everyone i know to spread the word too.

BILL NAPOLI: When I was growing up here in the wild west, if a young man got a girl pregnant out of wedlock, they got married, and the whole darned neighborhood was involved in that wedding. I mean, you just didn’t allow that sort of thing to happen, you know? I mean, they wanted that child to be brought up in a home with two parents, you know, that whole story. And so I happen to believe that can happen again.

Oh yeah, that works great.  Let’s take everyone’s right to decide for themselves what their life will be like.  This is so offensive that I’m not sure what to say about it. 

there is still a big debate over whether privacy is a fundamental right (i.e. Constitutionally protected), since it doesn’t actually appear in the Constitution

Wow, I had no idea that was what was going on.  So those famous words, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - are they in the constitution?  You would think liberty would cover a person’s right to privacy. (I’m Canadian)

I have no words for a man so obviously stupid.  Is this guy married?  So if his wife was raped (in the real world terminology) and she became pregnant would he insist that she remain pregnant?  I wonder what he would think of a woman who was drugged and raped.  Would she qualify?

What is it about men that they feel the need to take a woman’s power away?  I don’t want to take a man’s freedoms away.  What is so scary about us that men are like this?

This is when I thank God that I’m Canadian.  I get snaky when I see this kind of crap so I couldn’t imagine how I would get if my country tried pulling shit like this!

I am so linking and hitting all the hot spots for this one.  I wish this guy would go back to ‘the wild west’ he grew up in and leave all us modern, logical, intelligent people alone!

CindyS

So if his wife was raped (in the real world terminology) and she became pregnant would he insist that she remain pregnant?

Oh, no, she would be one of the “good girls” who deserves access to an abortion.

“The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion”

“To ensure that the rights of the minority are not trampled on as a result of the majority acting out of its own self-interest? The question in this particular case, of course, is whether abortion can be viewed as an actual right.”

It also depends on whether or not one counts embryos/fetuses as part of a ‘minority’ who need protected. I think Napoli (a) believes that the embryo/fetus is an individual in its own right and (b) the way Napoli’s comments are phrased, it sounds as though he think the ‘innocent’ have greater rights to protection. Non-virgins are less innocent because we’ve tasted of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. So, we’re sinful and we should be grateful to have the opportunity to give birth to an innocent. I think that’s what’s behind this.

Me, I don’t think of embryos or fetuses as individuals. Biologically, they’re more like parasites within the woman’s body. And yes, there are nice, symbiotic parasites, and not-so-nice parasites, so I don’t mean that in a derogatory way. What I mean is that I see the woman as the human being, the one with rights. And I refuse to believe that sex is bad or that a woman’s previous sexual history has any relevance in a rape trial - prostitutes can be raped, married women can be raped, virgins can be raped. It’s all rape, it’s wrong, and the blame is the rapist’s.

What stuns me along with every other repulsive word and phrase of Napoli’s description is his idea that the sodomy has to be as “bad as you can possibly make it”. As if especially brutal rip-you-apart sodomy is bad, but regular forced sodomy? . . . not so bad. How do misogynists like this get elected?  And why do I have the sinking feeling that some women out there, probably Ann Coulter among them, would agree with Napoli?

Done deal, ma honeys.  Let da bomb continue.

Except, of course, to vote him out of office - that’s the traditional remedy for errant politicians.

Puh-lease, I’ve been trying to get Santorum out of office since he ran for re-election for his second term. I’ve sent so much hate mail to that man I’m probably on some government list somewhere. Unfortunately, idiots do vex us, and even more unfortunately, their name is frequently “politician.”

But thanks Candy, for making me smile with your reference to santorum.

Delighted to discover your site.
Excellent idea!

Go here http://www.spittleandink.com/simpleblog/default.asp?view=plink&id=311
to see the fake “proposed South Dakota Abortion Application form” based on Napoli’s remarks.

Aaargh!  The link didn’t work!  Try this one, and scroll down:

http://www.spittleandink.com/simpleblog/

oh candy and sarah, my love for you is too great to be deemed healthy.

I’ve posted at dailykos.

Have you seen this?

http://www.postmoderncourtesan.com/archives/000654.php

Now, you have to understand, according to her blog, this woman is actually a prostitute, so she’d definitely be in the “Doesn’t get an abortion” category, but I thought her little law spoof worked quite well!

Wonderful! I will try to use it as much as possible.
Glad to have found this site as well!

Life, liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness: Declaration of Independence.

Don’t fret, Cindy. Americans get the one wrong too.

(OTH, they are revolutionary words--a little much for a Constitutional document.)

My mother worked for abortion rights, passage of Roe V. Wade, and was VP of her state chapter of the ACLU. I grew up at rallies. The fact that we’re still debating this using hysterical models designed to get people’s emotions twisted is very discouraging.

So, clearly Napoli is a good buddy of old Bobby Knight, of the “I think that if rape is inevitable, relax and enjoy it” school of thought. One of those enlightened men who think dragging a woman around by the hair is the epitome of treating her like a queen.

What I’m thinking is that this man needs a few night’s stay in a maximum security men’s penitentiary. Perhaps a little gentle loving and sodomy would give him a change of heart about the definition of “violent” rape.

I couldn’t be any more disgusted if he added that public stoning of homosexuals was every South Dakotans moral and social obligation. Okay, well, yes, I guess I could be more disgusted…

I’m not really the Romance novel type, linked over from Jesus General where I am sure your coinage will be picked up and oft riffed upon. If any one hasn’t suggested it yet, perhaps you could submit your new word to the Urban Dictionary, so that it might reside with all the other filthy verbage therein.

, no, she would be one of the “good girls” who deserves access to an abortion.

Oh no, I disagree. He’d make her carry the baby to term despite her wishes, then adopt it off to some good Christian couple.

This man had better have a passle of disabled, HIV-positive, teenaged orphans living in his house. As a matter of fact, let’s send all the unwanted, inconvenient children up to South Dakota. Adoption isn’t all about cute, healthy, WHITE babies, you know. Let’s spread that life-affirming love around, shall we?

What in the world is SBTB doing being linked from a site called “Jesus General?”

SB Sarah, you know that the antichrist will be making his big announcement here. They’re just staying on top of things.

It had to be the man-titty that tipped them off.

Not for nothing (and in saying the following I realize that I’ve been accused of being a liberal-minded New England Intellectual, Democrat—all of which is completely false, as I’m really a conservative-minded, Greater-Metro-New-York Intellectual, former Republican — hey, I was young at the time, and I got better), but isn’t all rape, by definition brutal?

I mean, seriously, it doesn’t (or shouldn’t) matter if the rape was of an 11-year-old virgin, or a 90-year-old mother of 20; whether the woman was beaten, knifed, shot, or “simply” forced to have sex against her will with someone with whom she would have preferred not to have had any physical contact.

Rape is rape, or rather it should be. And while we are on the subject, why do we talk about rape and incest as if they were two separate things (like a 5-year-old is going to actually understand and want to have sex with a an older relative). I mean, isn’t incest simply raping a family member? If so, then why classify it separately as if it were somehow less heinous a crime than “merely” raping a complete stranger?

I realize that as a Roman Catholic I’m supposed to think Abortion is a bad thing, and that all life is sacred, well I am and I do and I do, only, we are not talking about me, we are talking about some woman (or girl) who was raped, and as I understand it, we all (yes, all) get to make our own decisions, and — of course — be responsible for the consequences of any and all results of said decisions.

Thus to my way of thinking, by restricting a woman’s right to choose is to (quite seriously) place us on the path of the more radical elements of the Islamic movement that require cartoonists to be put to death for cracking a joke (making a point) that was innocuous at best. And if you can’t see that, then that, my friend, is the first problem.

http://www.specromonline.com

Great protest. Glad to be a part.

“while we are on the subject, why do we talk about rape and incest as if they were two separate things”

Because they are. Consensual incestuous relationships are quite possible. Depends on the ages of the two people concerned, but think about Oedipus and his mother. That wasn’t rape. It was incest. And some people’s ideas about how close the relationship has to be for it to be incest vary. I was really suprised when I first learned about the laws some US states have against cousins marrying. I thought that it was a fairly normal, everyday thing (happens in Heyer and Austen). But some people might call it incest.

When I was growing up here in the wild west, if a young man got a girl pregnant out of wedlock, they got married, and the whole darned neighborhood was involved in that wedding. I mean, you just didn’t allow that sort of thing to happen, you know? I mean, they wanted that child to be brought up in a home with two parents, you know, that whole story.

I’m posting this anonymously out of respect for my mom. She was one of those girls. As a matter of fact, she grew up just a few miles from the South Dakota border. And when she got pregnant at 16, she had to marry the 16-year-old father, a boy she wasn’t even DATING anymore. They did “the right thing”, forced upon them by “the whole darned neighborhood”, and they were scared and miserable. In between popping out baby after baby, my mom lived with a man who felt trapped, who was angry and frustrated enough to beat the hell out of her on occasion. Then, when she finally got the guts to leave him. . . a lot of guts, considering she had four small children and no job or education. . . the “whole darned neighborhood” considered her a whore and a jezebel for leaving her husband.

Ah, the good ol’ days. If only there were a lynching in the story, it would be perfect.

Sorry to give you a start, SB Sarah, and for the dropped apostrophe also. You can be sure that sentiment at the General’s site about this turd Napoli is in accord with that here. We just prefer to attack from the flanks, rather than frontally.

The world of the lefty political blog.

the kos diary came and went. They do that. http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/3/8/91144/49061

I posted at blondesense too and if mznicky picked it up and carried it to The General
If mznicky stays on it. . . then ready, set, go. . . it’ll get legs and run

Done and done, ladies.

Thanks for giving me something to be enraged about on this boring HumpDay.

“Because they are. Consensual incestuous relationships are quite possible.”

Point taken. I tend to think of incest as a father (uncle, older brother/cousin) taking advantage of a younger (underage) child, but I see your point.

Duly blogged and linked.  Cretins like this godbag give me a rash.

I’m just amazed that another human being could actually consider that you’d have to be ‘pure’ and reach a certain level of brutality in order to be ‘messed up’ by what is one of the most horrible and emotionally devastating acts that can be perpetuated on anyone, male or female.

Done, with pleasure.
http://wanderingeyre.com/2006/03/08/everyone-together/

If you scroll down to the post before last, Suzie Bright posted a video of this story, including words from the Asshat himself.  I’m too pissed to type a coherent response right now. 

http://susiebright.blogs.com/

If any good comes of this, I’m hoping it will be a massive public outcry that will force this putz to resign, get censured by his colleagues, or at the very least, not get re-elected.  Something that will send a message to other messed up politicos.

Done http://laurendane.blogspot.com/2006/03/bow-down-to-bitches.html

Hey,

I’m without any sort of website.  What can I do to keep this fuckwad at the very top of the Great American Dumbasses (GAD) list?

I bet Napoli is one of those morons who think women really REALLY enjoy going to the gynecologist, cuz that pap thing is, like, awesome...long object inserted in hole equals a hella good time.  Naturally.

I put up a post about this with a multitude of napoli links, but it’s not showing up in your ‘trackback list.

It is there, though.

And this thought: I’ve got another name to add to my list of Italian-Americans to be ashamed of. This guy is right up there with Scalia and D’Amato.

I have done your bidding, O Smart Bitch!

LC

did anyone else notice the bit about the napolied victim being so messed up that carrying the pregnancy to term would be an actual threat to her life?

so the whole thing is based on the idea that you can’t end a pregnancy unless the mother’s life is threatened.

so is that (seriously) another hurdle to a rape victim procuring abortion, or some kind of adendum to the idea of medically necessary abortions?

reminds me strangely of O. Goldsmith’s poem ... as in, Napoli’s “girl” has suffered enough, but the rest of us bitches can just die.

WHEN lovely woman stoops to folly,
And finds too late that men betray,
What charm can soothe her melancholy,
What art can wash her guilt away?

The only art her guilt to cover,
To hide her shame from every eye,
To give repentance to her lover,
And wring his bosom--is to die.

I didn’t think it was possible, but I’m actually more pissed off today than yesterday.  Maybe because I tortured myself by watching the video.  I actually wanted to cry, it upset me so badly.

When the time comes, I’m going to Washington.  Anybody want a ride?

And in the next election, I’ll vote for Bozo if he’s pro-choice.

Why aren’t any of the Hollywood Big Mouths on this?  Sure, bitch about Iraq, but what about your own freakin’ country???

‘reminds me strangely of O. Goldsmith’s poem ... as in, Napoli’s “girl” has suffered enough, but the rest of us bitches can just die.’

They’re working on the basic fundie idea that if women can’t get an abortion legally, they’ll give up. They’re not figuring that someone might just be scared or hurting enough to do it herself, one way or the other.

And if she dies of peritonitis from dirty instruments or perforating her womb with a knitting needle, why, that’s God’s will, and just punishment. Strike two lives to ‘save’ one. Illogical, but it’s the principal of the thing. I think.

noted and blogged.

what.an.asshat.

could someone go all Bill Napoli on his ass?

Dear Bitches: I wandered in here this morning from the fabulous Twisty Faster’s “I Blame the Patriarchy” site, visited briefly, picked up your Google-bomb, and ran with it over to not only my own Tennessee Guerilla Women site, but also to the awesome Jesus’ General and Crooks & Liars as well. Best of luck schtupping this guy’s sorry ass.

Hey, we should also let Dan Savage know about this campagain. I bet he’d get his readers in on this, too.

Hey, somewhat regular reader here :)

I’ll send this to Amanda at Pandagon, if you don’t mind.  Hopefully, she’ll spread the word about the new meaning of “Napoli” and the googlebomb plan further

(and the idea is spreading, because I myself came here via Twisty Faster’s “I Blame the Patriarchy” blog)

A few people on LiveJournal are picking up on this--it takes a while for go0gle to index LJ, but hopefully it’ll help

What in the world is SBTB doing being linked from a site called “Jesus’ General?”

I wonder how many people click on that site thinking it’s literal.  Anyone who hasn’t been over there, check it out! 

You would think liberty would cover a person’s right to privacy.

Here’s the thing: because the US is a constitutional democracy, we’re always balancing the liberty interest of the individual against the state interest in a particular issue (what Candy rightly identified as the majority-minority tension).  And depending on the issue and on how it’s framed legally, and on whether the right is “fundamental” or not (i.e. whether it’s in the constitution or granted by federal or state statute), on the particular Supreme Court justices interpreting constitutional law, etc.  Then there is the issue of what states can and can’t control, which is where the abortion debate seems to be settling.

For anyone interested in these issues, I really, really urge you to read the case law, especially Roe v. Wade (1973), but also Planned Parenthood of Southern PA v. Casey (1992) and the earlier case of Griswold v. Connecticut (the landmark contraception case).

Twisty sent met. I did my best. Good luck with this and Happy International Women’s Day!

http://ravenmn.blogspot.com/2006/03/happy-international-womens-day-i-want.html

Brilliant!  I put it on my writing blog, and even un-hiatused my political blog, Seething in the Wilderness, for the occasion, just to double the fun.

Jesus’ General rocks!  I’ll blogpimp you to Shakespeare’s Sister momentarily.  It’s been awhile since I’ve visited her.  Ooh, and Big Brass Alliance, too.

Thanks for waking the sleepy, cranky activist in me.

Candy, in case you want a link to the vid of that asshat saying those words. Your idea is making it around on Crooks & Liars. Good Luck. ~ PEACE!
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/03/06.html#a7412

Add another LJ post to the mix.

i threw it on my lj too and msn’d alot of friends to look

What a great site.  I love trashy novels so will come here often.
re: napoli - when I saw this cretin on News Hour I couldn’t believe my ears.  I love that this is getting the attention it so richly deserves and hope it doesn’t die out anytime soon.  I can’t believe all the things my generation fought for are being swept away in my lifetime.  I have chills like I had when I read “A Handmaids Tale” - that book will haunt me forever.

Bounced over here from Shakespeare’s Sister. Just wanted to say that, while I like Dan Savage and read his column often, I always thought his ‘santorum’ campaign—though funny—was, well, wrong, because Rick Santorum isn’t the only Santorum in the world, and I always wondered how the other Santorums felt about having their name hijacked this way. I mean, I’m sure there are a bunch of perfectly sensible, level-headed and open-minded Santorums out there, right? That campaign can’t have endeared them to liberal activism, can it? How would you feel?

I empathize with your anger at Mr. Napoli, and I wish you best of luck with whatever Bill Napoli specific campaigns you come up with, but I think this ‘smear someone by besmirching a name they share with hundreds of others’ idea can’t be the best you got, can it?

Good evening.

This site was posted in a comment at BlondeSense, and I made the mistake of clicking on the link. Now, unfortunately, I shall be forced to put this site in my blogroll if for no other reason than that I rarely find a blog with so many grammatically excellent commenters possessing that difficult-to-achieve morsel of reasonably well-mannered outrage. I have also amended my current Open Forum to note this site and your current campaign to bring the word napoli into the lexicon of American English.

May your efforts bear fruit.

From another part of the Blogosphere, the Dark Wraith bids your well.

Candy, you’re brilliant. I’ll do what I can.

hey all--i tried googling “bill napoli” earlier (i know it’s too early for major results, but i was wondering if the site would come up at all yet).  when i made the search more specific, the SBTB site did come up, but the definition page didn’t.  does it just take time for google to notice new pages, or is there something we can do to speed up the process?  i seem to remember there’s a way to register or index your site with google...am i wrong? 

another interesting thing--when i googled “bill napoli” yesterday i got around 730 hits.  now there are something like 11,000--most of them about these rape comments.

Done, and quoted

ballgame, I agree that the Santorum campaign was a little juvenile and served no purpose other than humiliation (which the “honorable” PA senator roundly deserved but not those who share his name, except possibly his wife).

But this campaign is different because it a) targets one individual and b) draws attention to Napoli’s own vile words.  It educates and enlightens in a matter of seconds.

The point here is to get people talking about the real consequences of an abortion ban.  In the event it ever gets approved by the Supreme Court (unlikely, according to most experts), policy makers will have to ask the hard questions: Who counts as a “victim”?  Who is “worthy” of an abortion?  If abortion is declared to be murder, should women go to jail for having the procedure?

Better to have this dialogue now so people can remember that there are other lives at stake besides that of the fetus.

I’ve been fuming since yesterday about this, and it’s getting worse. Will attempt to tame righteous anger, so here’s a bit of background.

History bit: Up into the 19th century, the law in most of the states was the pre-existing common law inherited from the British. This didn’t consider abortion prior to “quickening” (see below*) to be a criminal act. Things were a bit more grey after quickening, but even so many people didn’t consider it a sin.

From a social perspective, even after the states began to pass laws against abortion from the first half 19th century, juries often acquitted abortionists. “Female” pills to induce miscarriage were advertised in newspapers. Moral condemnation and attacks only intensified in the second half of the century.

A number of reasons have been put forward for this, and they’ve been hashed through in books, so to keep things brief, I won’t go into the arguments. They include: the humanitarian movement that arose at the time (a bid to “protect” women); development of biological knowledge; shift to women being treated by doctors rather than mid-wives (the AMA was solidly against abortion); influence of Victorian morality; political need for increased population to fuel economic growth.

Many of these seem to tie into the concomitant condemnation of birth control as exemplified by the Comstock law (1879, not repealed until 1965).

*Quickening: Again, things are a bit hazy on this depending on era and culture. It was usually deemed to be the point where the foetus took on life. This was important because many religions saw this as connected to the point where the soul entered the body. Until then, the foetus was seen as an extension of the mother.

Sometimes this was deemed to be the first time movement was felt in the womb, more usually it was a set number of days after conception. Many of the church fathers like Augustine (not exactly a hand-wringing liberal softie when it came to women) held this view. The Catholic church officially set the days as 40 days for a boy, 80 for a girl. Make of that distinction what you will. In fact it was only in the late 19th century (1879ish I think??) that the Pope condemned all abortion as a sin. Protestants accepted these dates without much question. Islamic theologians set the time as anything from 40 to 120 days after conception. Judaic views seem to have been similar.

Back to Napoli and S.Dakota. I’m still furious. One thing is that as far as I’m aware (and Robin or anyone, please correct me on this) the foetus doesn’t have full rights under the law in other matters. For example, pre-natal injury or propery/inheritance laws. But this might have something to do with acquiring a birth certificate/citizenship? Also, in the case detailed by the senator, wouldn’t the rapist have to be convicted before the abortion could be authorised? Which might take a while to do, and makes the issue irrelevent after nine months or so.

Interestingly, this side of the pond the Home Office have just kicked off a big campaign to warn men that they should ensure that they have a woman’s consent. This is partly because apparently in about 1/3 of rape cases reported to the police, the victim has been drinking which makes it harder to secure a conviction. But they want to try to clarify the law on consent in this respect, hence the campaign. It’s a good thing if it works, but points to the fact that the culture of blame is still pervasive.

EvilAuntiePeril, in some benighted states here on the other side of the pond, you do have people getting tried for double murder if the woman they killed was pregnant.  And in England, at least, didn’t you have to wait to see if the widow was pregnant/had a son before you could entail estates onto other branches of the family?  Does that count as fetal rights?

you do have people getting tried for double murder if the woman they killed was pregnant.  And in England, at least, didn’t you have to wait to see if the widow was pregnant/had a son before you could entail estates onto other branches of the family?  Does that count as fetal rights?

Good point, Sarah. I’d forgotten about the entailing/heir to the manor thing. And it’s possible to will things to future descendents, too. But in this case they don’t even have to be conceived. Can anyone clarify the theory behind this? I’m on shaky ground because I don’t have any background in law to prop this up.

I think it’s interesting to consider the whole question of rights because this is one of the justifications put forward for restricting access to abortion (protecting the rights of the vulnerable minority). So I’d really be grateful for some insight into this.

The double murder issue is interesting, too. A lot of the evidence for early historical views of the unborn child is based on legal judgement in the case of pre-natal injury. And for the most part, this focusses on the parents’ loss rather than the child.

Is there a legal opinion on how a child’s status changes at the moment of birth? For example things like tax credits and child benefit only apply after birth, don’t they?

I think it’s interesting to consider the whole question of rights because this is one of the justifications put forward for restricting access to abortion (protecting the rights of the vulnerable minority). So I’d really be grateful for some insight into this.

I don’t know much about this, but I can tell you that as long as states don’t violate the Constitution, they can make laws that, for example, afford greater protections than a particular amendment.  As Sarah said, there has been a shift toward considering a fetus/unborn child a murder victim in some cases, and I don’t know what the impact of that will be on the abortion issue.  In some cases, it’s not, IMO, so much about religious beliefs, but about the desire to crack down on crime, and to ensure that big sentences land on folks like Scott Peterson, for example.  Double murder = potentially double punishment. 

People just have to remember that this is largely about what STATES have the power to do because the Consitution provides a minimum guarantee of rights, and the Supreme Court is the branch that establishes the nuances of that minimum.  What, for example, are going to be the implications of the way the Roe Court emphasized viability as the threshold for a woman’s privacy rights, especially given the neo and pre natal technology available today?  Let alone the power the Right has gained since 9/11.

EAP, I am not a lawyer, but I think the inheritance laws were to protect the deceased landowner’s interests more than the fetus. In other words, if the wife is barred from remarrying for three months, that allows interested parties to determine if she’s carrying a potential heir.  Since her husband is presumed to be the father of her baby, if she remarries too quickly and then gives birth, her new husband is considered under law the child’s father, and the interests of her deceased first husband haven’t been secured.

It’s not really about the woman or the fetus, but about protecting the property rights of the dead husband’s family and by extension, his potential rightful inheritor.

But as I said, IANAL, but I spend a lot of time reading and writing historical romance.

Don’t forget about http://www.pseudodictionary.com - “the place where words you’ve made up can become part of an actual online dictionary!” I love that site. TW

Blogged!  Anything to put an end to this revolting, antediluvian, patriarchal spew.

Added it to my blog, after finding it on Sybermoms.  And I, too, needed *one more blog* to read…

Rock on, sisters.

I’m sure I’m getting off topic here, but I just want people to THINK!. . .

Here’s a question to ponder. . . When was the last time ANYONE, pro-life or not, went to a funeral for an 8-week gestated fetus that was miscarried? Uh. . . never? Why is that, hmm? Because it would be absurd? Because that life is not equal to mine?

There is a line, people. We all have our own idea of where that line is. That’s the point. YOU can’t tell me when life begins. I can’t tell you either.

I absolutely understand and respect that some people think abortion is wrong. It’s EASY to understand that. Nobody thinks abortion is festival we should all attend. But until every single unwanted, disabled, ill, hard-to-control, impossible-to-love, half-grown child is out of foster care and being raised in a loving househould, I don’t even want to discuss this shit. It’s ridiculous. You have no RIGHT to talk to me about making abortion illegal until you have at least three of those kids living and thriving in your home.

Amen, sister!

Blogged as well!

And may I give another AMEN! to Vicki, too!

Thanks, you guys. But you shouldn’t encourage me.

Hey, I just started my period! I’m gonna have a little memorial service at my house, if anyone wants to come pay respects to my poor, precious unfertilized egg. I think I’ll take her picture and put a eulogy in the paper. God’s littlest angel. . .

Every potential life is precious.

Very unoriginal of me but… what Vicky said!

And I just realized that I posted something very similar to Vicky’s sentiment in the comments to the newest Napoli entry here at SBTB.

Hey, I agreed with your post too! *g*

blogged

Best of luck in your google bombing campaign.  And glad I live North of the border.

Bill Napoli doesn’t have his own page in the Wikipedia… yet.

Bwa ha ha.