Emily Ratajkowski Bares All in Protest of Alabama Abortion Law

Actress and model Emily Ratajkowski's stunning photos always get the attention that they deserve.

In her latest post, she is using her body to get people's attention -- because state legislatures are meddling in the bodies of millions of Americans.

Emily is speaking out against Alabama's cruel anti-abortion law that was passed this week.

Emily Ratajkowski in Glasses

Emily Ratajkowski isn't just a talented actress and an outrageously gorgeous model -- she's passionately outspoken about human rights.

"This week, 25 old white men voted to ban abortion in Alabama," Emily noted in an Instagram post.

Notably, similar horrors were also passed in Mississippi, Georgia, Ohio, Arkansas, and Missouri. Every day is a nightmare.

To make matters worse, Emily notes that Alabama's abortion ban applies "even in cases of incest and rape."

There is also no age-exception, which means that a 12-year-old girl could be forced to give birth to a predatory relative's child.

To make sure that people saw her message, Emily stripped down, showing off her body -- which was actually relevant to the topic at hand.

Emily Ratajkowski Makes a Powerful Statement

"These men in power are imposing their wills onto the bodies of women," Emily notes.

There are a couple of issues with that line, but she's not wrong.

Emily accuses them of doing so "in order to uphold the patriarchy and perpetuate the industrial prison complex."

Emily says that they do so "by preventing women of low economic opportunity the right to choose to not reproduce."

That may sound like a conspiracy theory, but we're sure that those were factors for at least some supporters of the bill.

Emily Ratajkowski Reflects in a Yellow Dress

But there's more than just economic inequality and archaic patriarchal cultural values at work.

"The states trying to ban abortion," Emily points out. "Are the states that have the highest proportions of black women living there."

These women are marginalized on multiple fronts, and many will be victims of these legislative attacks on their autonomy.

"This is about class and race," Emily argues.

She's absolutely right -- on a number of levels.

Emily Ratajkowski, Dog Selfie

"And," Emily continues, this law "is a direct attack on the fundamental human rights women in the US deserve."

"And," the rights to medical privacy "are protected by under Roe vs. Wade."

"Our bodies, our choice," Emily concludes.

She is absolutely right, and good for her for using her platform and her almost celestial beauty to convey an important point.

All of our voices matter in these troubled, nightmarish times.

Emily Ratajkowski: Happy New Year 2018

We do have a few notes on Emily Ratajkowski's post, however, though she is hardly the only one who needs to hear this.

First and foremost, Alabama's governor, Kay Ivey, is a woman.

She may be motivated by economic factors or white supremacy, but it's clear that something is more important to her than solidarity with fellow women.

Whether it's Diamond and Silk, Milo Yiannapoulos, Stephen Miller, or Tomi Lahren, every marginalized group has people working against their own communities.

And speaking of women, however, these "war on women" bills won't only impact women.

Trans men and folks of other genders can be impacted, as well. If you have a uterus in these states, you have a target on your back.

Emily Ratajkowski for Love Magazine

So why are all of these legislatures suddenly rushing to strip their citizens of basic rights?

It seems like each state is trying to outdo the last, making their bill harsher and crueler.

The reason is simple: because they want to take these cases before the current Supreme Court.

Trump and McConnell conspired to obstruct Obama's SCOTUS nominee and put Gorsuch and Kavanaugh on the Court.

It's all so that cases like this -- cases about the inalienable human rights of all Americans -- can go before a stacked panel of Justices.

The legislatures know that, one way or the other, Trump's regime won't be in power forever. They want to get a ruling before the Court changes again.