BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU BELIEVE - Main Stream Media f*cking up again!

This has been all over the news and social media today, with #DeleteFacebook trending on Twitter. As usual, I am furious.

The ONLY sane article I have seen on the subject is this one from The Daily Wire: https://www.dailywire.com/news/she-allegedly-aborted-burned-and-buried-her-baby-heres-how-media-covered-it

"Authorities — unaware that the baby had been illegally aborted — reportedly charged the women in early June with removing, concealing, or abandoning a dead human body, as well as concealing the death of another person and false reporting."

However, on further investigation Direct Messages on Facebook came to light, indicating that an illegal late-term abortion had been committed and not a grossly mishandled miscarriage or stillbirth as they had at first believed:

"The messages led Madison County Attorney Joseph Smith to add two more felonies, performing or attempting an abortion on a baby older than 20 weeks, as well as performing an abortion as a non-licensed doctor, to the charges against the mother."

You'd think this would be enough to have the general public up in arms about two women - women we're constantly being told are innately innocent, nurturing creatures - conspiring to kill a viable foetus and then burning and burying its body... Nope. They've spun it into a pro-choice story making Facebook's COOPERATION WITH A LEGAL ORDER the point of outrage. 

In my opinion THIS IS MISOGYNY - women aren't responsible for their crimes, the big bad patriarchy (FB must be masculine because its logo is blue, right?!) is responsible for betraying them.

FORBES HEADLINE: "Facebook Gave Nebraska Cops A Teen's DMs So They Could Prosecute Her For Having An Abortion" (has since been edited to read: "Facebook Gave Nebraska Cops A Teen's DMs. They Used Them To Prosecute Her For Having An Abortion.")

• FB did not 'give' anything and the original version reads like FB were the ones wanting the girl prosecuted.
• The teen in question also did not simply 'have an abortion' in the usual sense - she was an active participant in an act that is illegal just about everywhere

FIRST SENTENCE: "authorities obtained her Facebook messages using a search warrant"

• all legal and above board - and, as it turns out, for a damn good reason - whether you like it or not

ACTUAL CASE: "court documents indicate that police at the time were investigating the case of a stillborn baby who was burned and buried, not a decision to have an abortion"

• This is nothing to do with a decision to end a pregnancy but performing a medical procedure without qualifications, licenses, access to resources etc etc. If you performed an appendectomy on your kid it'd be much the same kind of illegal!
• The girl is believed to have been at least 23 weeks pregnant, well over the Nebraska state limit of 20 weeks - which in itself is one of the more generous limits - this is NOT a matter of a girl being denied options
• This also dates to BEFORE the overturning of Roe Vs Wade - she'd had at least five, or more likely six months to procure a legal, safe abortion. Possibly she didn't know she was expecting until way too late and that sucks but that still doesn't make the DIY approach okay
• I am pro choice all the way but fastening on to a case featuring the desecration of a corpse and the illegal disposal of human remains is faux outrage
• Abortion, where legal, is regulated for a reason - this girl could have DIED and her mother would be facing whatever the American equivalent of murder or manslaughter charges are
• There is another really important consideration here: what if the young woman had been coerced or forced into an illegal and dangerous termination? What if she had not consented to this?! Abortion is legal in the UK but a married man was recently jailed for trying to abort his girlfriend's pregnancy without her consent (link: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/darren-burke-home-office-boss-induce-miscarriage-partner-b2102580.html) yet today's narrative suggests we should turn a blind eye to the red flags
• If a teenage girl is pregnant one day and not the next it merits investigation; if a foetus is found burned and buried it merits investigation. The media is approaching it like she went and had a regular abortion procedure and is now facing jail for it - THIS IS NOT THE SAME

Forbes link: https://www.forbes.com/sites/emilybaker-white/2022/08/08/facebook-abortion-teen-dms/?sh=30efb86e579c&fbclid=IwAR3U4FkASeBUohxdGCAlpoP4uk97ZLgPEXBdmtSiXBLfKDxR6JVVOWaLPUs

This is NOT an isolated incident with this story. The Guardian led with "Facebook gave police their private data. Now, this duo face abortion charges"

• Again, data not 'given' - nothing is 'private' in a criminal investigation - Facebook DMs can be and are demanded to be turned over in other criminal investigations. Are the media really trying to argue a right to privacy where it relates to crime - murder, terrorism, child abuse?!
• The duo were always facing charges - they were up to their unmentionables in implication of illegal acts!

Guardian link: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/aug/10/facebook-user-data-abortion-nebraska-police

The Independent led with a marginally less click-bait title and admittedly was a more nuanced article. However, it still focused on the irrelevant Roe vs Wade issue and missed several key points, such as not disputing this comment from former candidate for Congress Brianna Wu:

"The difference in abortion being made illegal before Roe and now
is today we have a surveillance state.
If the tech industry were anything like what they pretend to be
- they’d fight this tooth and nail,”

Fight what?! The legal collecting of evidence to prosecute criminals?! This is NOTHING to do with surveillance. FB did not flag any concern and you can bet that if Al Qaida was plotting terrorist atrocities via social media everyone and their auntie would be up in arms that the platform hadn't monitored and reported it.

Indeed, if they'd fought a legally obtained search warrant there'd be hell to pay - what are they hiding etc etc.

Independent link: https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/nebraska-abortion-case-facebook-privacy-b2142024.html

For Example, Being Mrs Rock-Star

This is something I've been thinking about a fair bit lately, and not because I've completely lost my marbles...I know I don't stand a hope in hell with the rock-star of my dreams but who HASN'T imagined themselves in a relationship with, or married to, a celebrity crush?!

Now, beyond my own musings and barely coherent ramblings with fellow fangirls a few things have inspired this post:-

• Watching The One Show's tribute to Sir Terry Wogan and the odd way in which his family, including his wife of 50 years, were mentioned almost as an afterthought - between being very private about his home life and being considered a national treasure the people who should've been considered first and foremost following his death seemed almost excluded.
• The following line from actress Pam Dawber's Wikipedia page, describing her marriage to fellow actor Mark Harman: "The couple is known to be private about their family life and rarely appear in public together with their children or speak about one another in interviews" 
• Reading an article about the two virtually unknown daughters of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

What makes people keep aspects of their lives so intensely private?  It makes perfect sense to avoid unwarranted press intrusion, to protect young children and to not go airing all your dirty laundry in public like some people do - *cough* Katie Price *cough* - but personally I find it a little disconcerting when people are SO private it's like their 'other half' doesn't even exist.  Getting married particularly is a legal, and often religious, unification of two people's lives so continuing to live and present yourself as a single unit strikes me as decidedly odd; especially when BOTH partners are famous as in the instance above.  If one is a completely private individual it makes a little more sense but when you're both in the public eye...you don't have to say a lot about your partner - or children - but time and time again I come across it on someone's Wikipedia or IMDb page that they NEVER talk about their partner; sometimes the dates of their marriage, or even little details like the spouse's NAME, are unknown.

Perhaps it comes of having been single since... *tumbleweed* ...well, yes, let's not go into specifics.  Anyhoo, after many MANY years alone the thought of being with someone who'd barely acknowledge my existence in a public setting is actually quite upsetting.  Like, dude, are you ASHAMED of me?!  Just to make it quite clear, I have no interest in being with someone for any kind of reflected fame, glossy magazine photoshoots or having my flabby bits papped on the beach, but the thought of being...almost 'edited out' of my husband's life doesn't sit well either.  I can't imagine anyone wanting to proudly show me off on a red carpet (or jump on Oprah's sofa for that matter) but that doesn't mean I wouldn't like to be his +1 on occasion.

As a mother of two I can imagine trying to be discrete about what I said about my daughters in interviews, but I can't imagine never mentioning them at all.  As a parent your children are usually the centre of things; to me that level of 'privacy' sounds more like you're disowning them!  People ask after your family, it's considered polite and I can't imagine refusing to answer a basic question just because it refers to them.  My kids may be adult now but if they ever get a stepdad I hope he'd acknowledge them; my stepdad came into my life when I was 29 and he has fully embraced me and my children as his family.

EDIT 9th September 2024

I just saw a short by YouTuber Uyen Ninh where German Fiancé appears in a No-Face costume as they launch their new podcast and it reminded me of this blog... I have been following Uyen for a while (although due to notification issues I saw this late). Uyen is a Vietnamese YouTuber posting in English about her life in Germany.

I love the fact that whilst - for whatever reason(s) - German Boyfriend (now German Fiancé or German Husband-To-Be) doesn't use his name or show his face online he is clearly supporting of her channel and willing to be involved in content.

And that's what I was thinking with this blog post... Pretending your other half doesn't exist is a world of different (IMHO) than respecting their privacy.

I have ZERO interest in fame but I couldn't deal with being a non-entity or footnote in my partner's life.

I just love the way Uyen and German Boyfriend/Fiancé/Husband-to-be are managing his need for privacy while acknowledging their combined path in life. It really shouldn't have to be all or nothing; healthy middle ground can be found.