The strangest thing I have read in a long time

From CMR comes something so breathtakingly absurd that I wondered if I wasn’t looking at a 1 April post.

My emphases.

In what has to be the stupidest idea the ACLU has ever had (and that’s really saying something) they ultra liberal organization is now encouraging women to incorporate their uterus. Yeah, that’s what I said. Incorporate their uterus.

The ACLU’s reason? Republicans only wanna’ tell women what to do while they always want to deregulate business. Aren’t they clever?

The Daily Caller writes:

So much for encouraging female entrepreneurship, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Florida is trying to get women to incorporate their uteri … or is it uteruses?

The Florida ACLU is hoping its push will get women to take control of their reproductive health and keep politicians from taking their abortion rights.

“Businesses get special treatment these days,” the group said. “If lawmakers and other politicians see your uterus and your body as a business, maybe they’ll work to get government out of the uterus regulation business as they do for every other company.”

Abortion advocates say that social conservatives in Florida are attempting to usurp women’s reproductive rights and that applying business terms to body parts will somehow help stop Republicans’ pro-life effort.

But the idea that Big Government never tells business what to do is a bit off. Uhm?

Won’t that lead to taxing women’s utereses? Environmental regulations to protect indigenous populations?

But maybe they could decide their uterus is too big to fail and they could have Obama take it over. Oh wait, they might actually like that. ick.

But hey maybe this isn’t such a bad idea. Maybe we could unionize babies in the womb. Give them some legal recourse to being expelled.

But in the end this is just ACLU stupidity. Or is that redundant?

Incorporate… from incorporo… “to provide with a body, to embody, incorporate”.   This seem to imply a certain… what’s the word… disconnect?

And if this is to protect big government copulation with big abortion, that means big government oversight of human life from womb to tomb.

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Emanations from Penumbras and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. Phil_NL says:

    In a certain sense, this could be seen as progress. Afterall, a corporation cannot declare bankruptcy out of the blue, there is usually a judge involved who needs to sign off on this, and test if the company is viable, and what kind of steps might be needed to restore it.

    With this reasoning, if you incorporate a uterus, you would end abortion-on-demand; the fetus would legal protection.

    Somehow I doubt that’s what ACLU loons had in mind….

  2. thereseb says:

    This is very worrying. I fear, having only produced two children, that I have failed to maximise shareholder value, and have not got a good asset turnover ratio, or Return on Investment. Am I vulnerable to a takeover bid by Angelina Jolie?

  3. DominiSumus says:

    Very weird and disturbing. It sounds like the precursor to baby “factories” to me.

  4. jasoncpetty says:

    So as not to give scandal I hope they’re set up as non-profits. Or should they be S-corps owing to their “pass-through” nature? Will labor laws apply to this corporation? Will they be subject to veil-piercing theories of liability?

    /runs and hides

  5. Tony Layne says:

    Oh dearie me, I don’t think we have the hang of this hyperbole thingy …. If Jonathan Swift is rolling over in his grave, it’s with derisive laughter.

    @ thereseb: I don’t think you’re vulnerable to takeover by Angelina; she seems more interested in finished product than in means of production.


  6. rakesvines says:

    A corporation is an artificial person (corpus – body) like a trust or an estate. However, a uterus is part of a natural person, just like my kidneys and is not a person unto itself. So, by definition it cannot be incorporated.

    This is an absurd gimmick making a false association with the Conservatives concern for the person in the womb with their support for private enterprise. If such an association is to be made, it is more appropos for Planned Parenthood that profits with the slaughter of unborn, innocent children. The Right Wing does not profit from their birth.

    But to us, there is more to life than profit. There are the God given rights of a person that cannot be taken away by a political party or a maniacal president.

  7. Legisperitus says:

    If uteri were corporations, surely Planned Parenthood would be shut out by OSHA regulations…

  8. Andrew says:

    Members of ACLU might consider incorporating their brains to protect themselves from personal liability: they could just declare bankruptcy of the brain.

  9. Dan says:

    If you “incorporate” a woman’s uteri, would that make every pregnancy a commercial transaction? If so, maybe Congress can invoke the commerce clause to regulate abortion! (out of existence…) I hope this comes back to bite the ACLU…

  10. benedetta says:

    So then the pre-born would then be required to…litigate against the uterus, inc., for the rights which are endowed them by their Creator anyway? So I guess they are admitting that the preborn are persons under the law. Perhaps that’s a step in the right direction. Nonetheless we will continue advocate for them since they are unempowered, voiceless and defenseless…

  11. Titus says:


    I’m afraid this is my reaction as well: the concept of “incorporating” a physical thing is, well, simply a non-sequitor. It’s like saying, “go to the blue and aerate elephants”; it just doesn’t make sense.

    The ACLU frequently demonstrates that they have too many lawyers. I certainly hope it wasn’t an attorney who came up with their latest tag line: even an evil member of the bar should know better than to say something like this.

  12. aviva meriam says:

    WAIT: dont corporations have to show a profit over a period of years on their tax returns or else be shut down by the IRS? Could you imagine an audit? From what would the revenue stream flow?

  13. { Will labor laws apply… }

    {GROAN!} You’d better run, jcpetty!

  14. Mickey says:

    Father…I believe the word you’re searching for is irony

    –noun, plural -nies. Latin ?r?n?a Greek eir?neía dissimulation, sarcasm, understatement, equivalent to eír?n a dissembler

    1. the use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning
    2. (especially in contemporary writing) a manner of organizing a work so as to give full expression to contradictory or complementary impulses, attitudes, etc., especially as a means of indicating detachment from a subject, theme, or emotion.

  15. SonofMonica says:

    I guess that means:
    1. The Supreme Court should not have recently recognized women as persons with the right to spend money to engage in the political process.
    2. We need to raise taxes on all women, especially the oily ones.
    3. If a woman gets really popular, any Joe Schmoe should get a chance to own a piece of her.
    4. If a woman gets too popular to fail, the government should get to own her.
    5. When women get so popular that other women begin to feel inferior to her, the government should step in and break them into tiny little pieces.
    and finally…
    6. Women should never travel overseas cheaply, but instead always stay here at home.

  16. amenamen says:

    The website for “Incoporate my uterus” begins with the disclaimer:
    “Of course, you can’t legally Incorporate Your Uterus, but you can online. And by doing so, you can send a message …”

    They are trying – evidently – to use humor to advance their diabolical cause, but they seem completely unaware of the bitter and humorless irony of their whole enterprise. It is they who treat the Temple of the human body like a marketplace and a den of thieves.

  17. Massachusetts Catholic says:

    If you read the Abby Johnson book “Unplanned” it explains all about the corporate mentality that guides Planned Parenthood. It is eerie to see the ACLU adopt that language after reading Ms. Johnson’s book, especially the part about PP putting pressure on her when she was a director of a Texas clinic, to step up the profits on the abortion side of the business. Clearly, those who are in the front of the anti-life movement, such as the ACLU and PP, share a worldview.

  18. anilwang says:

    @aviva meriam,

    Why not? After all, Biblical Jews were supposed to consecrate their first borns to God since they were the first fruits, so clearly babies were thought of as profit.

    Corporations aren’t required to declare a profit every year, but they would have to justify why they don’t. So not only will women have to answer their mothers “So when will you give me grandchildren?”, they’ll have to answer to the government! I don’t think that’s what the ACLU has in mind.:-)

  19. jflare says:

    Seems to me the ACLU and women stand to lose much more from this than they gain. Corporations usually must answer to various legal and financial concerns that individuals don’t require:
    – Taxes usually apply to produced goods. I should think a tax levy could be placed on the “goods” of the tissues of an aborted fetus. Not to mention the blood.
    – Corporations must provide reasonably decent working conditions for their laborers. An incorporated uterus might be sued for criminal abuse of its workers and/or a failure to maintain workplace environmental standards.
    – An incorporated uterus might be subject to taxes related to another good, the pleasure a woman or man might derive corporate property.

    I’m sure a creative and/or skilled lawyer could develop many other appropriate means of addressing the corporate uterus’..intentions.

    Of course, most of these would probably be costs passed on to consumers, thereby making the price of abortion, prostitution, and various other..professions..(?)..rather more costly to all persons.

    Wonder if the ACLU thought of that?

Comments are closed.