Why in the hell do these white men think they need to control everyone and make decisions for everyone. Before anyone calls me a racist, I am a white woman.

Not as many, but some.

If America is exceptional, America will fight back these people who hate women.

even if you are not a woman, but coming from women I think makes a difference.

So I guess they just want to know who the whores are and who they aren't.

Because that's so important to define

Certainly want to have sex and want compliant women to remain sexually available. This is about who gets to control the circumstances under which women can have sex.

(Note: almost all men want to have sex, but that DOES NOT mean they all need to have the control. The men I hang with are confident enough to enjoy a woman's sexual independence, rather than be threatened by it. )

and who tells me exactly what she wants to make her happy. I don't like guessing games. I am married now, but when I was single I always wanted my partner to be satisfied- it helps ensure a repeat performance

But no way they'll stop there.

If we allow them to successful here, we all have targets on our backs.

But I suspect I'm preaching to the choir here.

As a poster above wrote, we need to take this fight beyond DU, and beyond the Internet as well.

their wives/mistresses/daughters.

The law is for the little people.

"They will exempt their daughters / wives".

Not, "wealthy women will exempt themselves from men's control".

We let this attack on our sisters with fewer resources stand, and even wealthy women will eventually have their freedoms curtailed and their sexuality will only be allowed to function at the behest of or with permission from their fathers and husbands.

will be subject to far less control, and infinitely less systemic control.

Control of the peasantry and lower classes - i.e., the 99% - is always the end game.

Including access to healthcare, contraception, and abortion.

I strongly believe that best way for women of means to safeguard their own freedom is to safeguard every woman's freedom.

We need to work across class and race in a unified way because we are much easier to defeat divided than united. Sexual freedom must be the norm, not the wealthy's privilege.

But we're splitting hairs on a topic that we agree on. (That's how I know we are both democrats.).

It's about taking self-determination away from women through their sexuality, which is what the patriarchy has been doing since time immemorial. Which is why they are so determined and passionate about it. And so irrational.

To some segments of the establishment.

If the Christofascists can suppress the advancement of the working poor by forcing poor women to have unplanned pregnancies, then it benefits the corporations economically to have an endless supply of local cheap labor. And it benefits the Theocrats to social engineer their perceived view that women are put on earth to procreate and to be treated as chattel. This is the end game. Way past time to call these bastards out.

Women's remain sexually dependent and non-autonomous and the poor remain dependent and, well, same thing.

But I remain convinced that this "social experiment " on poor women is only a precursor to control over ever larger groups. If they can "prove the concept" with poor women, no one should think they will stop there.

No one is safe, eventually, if they succeed.

it strikes at the poor (and the darker-skinned), it strikes at women (obviously), it strikes at the youth--it ultimately strikes at everyone by reinforcing a blatantly artificial worldview that the Victorians would've called stuffy

it serves so many reactionary groups at once: that's why it's one of the right wing's big themes

Saudi-style police for the promotion of "virtue" and prevention of "vice" to pop up in a solidly Repuke state inthe next few years. Texas, Kansas and Wisconsin would be my leading contenders given the flat-out insanity of their governors. And judging from a post kicking around today Alabama is another good bet.

But don't count out Utah.

...controlling their own sexuality.

Yes, that would eliminate many problems, wouldn't it?

they are anti-women, not pro-life

for adoption. When an unmarried woman gets pregnant, and doesn't have an abortion, they are not happy with her either. They want their pound of flesh for her "sin." They want her child ripped from its mother's breast.

And of course, marriage only means heterosexual marriage to them. Gays and lesbians owe it them to live sexless lives.

Why wouldn't they want a business that's subsidized, enormously lucrative and adds another sheep to the flock all with the actual work and risk taken in for somebody who gets, at most, a few months of room and board?

Crisis pregnancy centers are the shiny storefronts for human trafficking.

They are on the front line of the coerced adoption movement.

Conservatives are completely indifferent to the pain and grief often suffered by birth mothers. Republicans don't care about the poor, so it should come as no surprise that they would take that lack of compassion to such an extreme extent.

People who think we are lesser creations feel we need to be reined in or we get too much agency. It's bigotry. None of their twisted rationalizations make a lick of logical sense, that's because it's just hate.

Total control.