Feminist activists have only one goal this year: to make sure abortions in all forms stay legal.
As the Supreme Court decides whether or not to hear a case that could end legislation requiring aborted fetuses to be buried as human beings, feminists are panicking. This could be the first abortion-related case to be heard by a conservative-leaning court, and the first abortion case to be heard by Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
Creator of the Daily Show and pro-abortion activist Lizz Winstead tweeted on Jan. 11, “Today SCOTUS decides whether it will hear an Indiana case requiring mandatory cremation/ burial for abortions AND miscarriages based on "dignity of personhood" If they take it, & decide medical waste is a person, ROE IS DEAD. PLEASE PAY ATTENTION.”
Winstead callously calls unborn children “medical waste.” Her group, the Lady Parts Justice League, created a video attacking one of the “real batshit extremists behind” the law. According to the group, “One of the most recent proposed unconstitutional scams mandates the burial of all fetal tissue from miscarriages, ectopic pregnancies, and abortions performed in all medical facilities.”
This law was passed as when Vice President Mike Pence was governor of Indiana. It’s received much resistance from Planned Parenthood and abortion activists.
Other feminist media personalities joined in with their criticism of the case. CNN columnist Danielle Campoamor tweeted, “Dear Scotus, Fetal tissue is not a person. Fetal tissue is not a person. Fetal tissue is not a person. Fetal tissue is not a person. Fetal tissue is not a person. But I am. And I matter more than fetal tissue. Signed, people who have miscarriages and abortions.”
People who have miscarriages don’t choose the death of their babies, Danielle. There’s a difference.
As of Jan. 11, SCOTUS had not announced whether or not the case would be taken up. Broadly, a feminist branch of Vice Media, wrote, “Reproductive rights activists know well what’s at stake, both in terms of the Indiana case and the potential abortion related cases the Supreme Court may hear in the near future.”