Quote of the Day

[Content Note: Reproductive rights.]

"This is the kind of coercion we can expect. It's not about contraception. It's about government control of our lives and it's got to stop."—Republican presidential candidate and EXTREME ANTI-CHOICER Rick Santorum, on the Obama administration's contraceptive policy, at CPAC today.

Said, presumably, without a trace of fucking irony.

lulz

Number of the Day

72: The number of hours in a mandated "waiting period" for abortion-seekers being proposed in Utah by state representative Steve Eliason, who is a Republican, of course.

Utah Rep. Steve Eliason (R) has proposed a bill (HB 461 [pdf]) that would require women to wait 72 hours before receiving abortion care, the Salt Lake Tribune reports. Under current law, women must wait 24 hours before receiving abortion services. If approved, Utah would have the same waiting period as South Dakota, which currently has the longest waiting period in the U.S.

Planned Parenthood Association of Utah has filed a lawsuit to overturn the law, arguing that it violates Roe v. Wade. The group said South Dakota's 72-hour waiting period puts an undue burden on women, who often have to travel long distances to reach the two abortion clinics in the state.

Eliason said the extension would give women the same amount of time "to make a major life decision" as "any consumer has to consider cancelling a mortgage."

I am really running out of ways to make the point that women and other people with uteri are not infants who are ignorant of their options (even though Republican-favored abstinence-only sex ed programs endeavor to turn them into exactly that). We don't need time to "really think it through" or "consider alternatives" or whatevthefuck Rep. Dipshit and the rest of the nation's Mendacious Band of Anti-Choice Fuckheads are alleging will happen in the three days they delay us from terminating a pregnancy.

Forcing a person to wait three days will not change the fact that zie does not want to have a child. Even if it changes hir mind about terminating the pregnancy, it doesn't change whatever circumstances brought hir to an abortion clinic in the first place.

Zie'll still walk out just as devoid of choices, just as un- or underemployed, just as broke, just as in debt, just as uninsured, just as lacking daycare, just as unable to care for hirself and/or hir existing children, just as in need of medication that zie can't take while pregnant, just as enmeshed in an unhealthy or abusive relationship, just the same as zie was when zie walked in.

Zie'll just have been guilted into making sacrifices zie doesn't want to make, to honor someone else's mistaken perceptions about hir morality.

All of these absurd barriers to termination are utter hogwash, rooted in the damnable fairy tale that women and other people with uteri are incapable of making the best decisions for themselves and their own bodies (and, frequently, for the children they already have).

The reality is this: There is an inextricable link between the economy, the funding of social services, and abortion. If "pro-lifers" really wanted women to want to have babies, they would start arguing for universal healthcare, just for a fucking start, considering about one-fourth of women seeking abortions cite their own health or possible health problems with the fetus as reasons for the termination, owing to concerns including "a lack of prenatal care."

But they're not pro-life. They're just anti-women.

And they can caterwaul about how that's not true all they fucking want, but, the truth is, they refuse to listen to women, and other people with uteri, to the millions of women who are telling them they don't need waiting periods or ultrasounds or parental/spousal consent or anti-abortion counselors or any of the other disincentives being proposed to deter them from terminating unwanted pregnancy, but do need jobs and healthcare and childcare and parental leave laws and associated institutional framework that supports successful parenthood.

And when you refuse to listen to women, your argument that you're not explicitly anti-women holds precious little water.

Particularly when your state has failed utterly to fund a robust social safety net, but has been trying, with various degrees of success, to chip away at Roe virtually since the decision granted people with uteri the right to terminate pregnancies.

[Via Steph Herold.]

Reproductive Rights Updates: AK, WI, IL, GA, MI, AZ, & Fed

Here's some more of All The News You Can Use...to bang your head against your desk.

In Alaska, the state's Senate Minority Leader, John Coghill (R-North Pole) has intro'd mandatory ultrasound legislation. Wait. North Pole? That's cool, in a "don't write that every day" sort of way. But I digress! Sen. Coghill thinks this is a matter of "informed consent". He so graciously explains:

"I think if people understood a little bit more about what's going on in the womb, they might reconsider (an abortion)," he said.

"The choice is the female's, and I respect that as much as I can respect it," he said, "but I'm also trying to bring as much respect for what a pregnancy really is."

Because "a female" just doesn't know anything about "what a pregnancy really is", amirite?

***

In Wisconsin, there was, apparently, a "contentious" debate in the state senate yesterday when a public hearing was held regarding legislation that is supposed to ensure that a woman is definitely not being forced to have an abortion and also addresses women being able to obtain mifepristone via web.

Under current Wisconsin law, abortion providers must inform women seeking them of the risks, and then the woman must give voluntary written consent. Republican Rep. Michelle Litjens wants to add provisions. She told the Assembly Health committee of her alarm when she heard a Milwaukee radio station air a 911 call.

“There was a young girl about 13 or 14 who was being escorted into an abortion clinic a few months ago. She didn’t want to go inside and there were some people outside the clinic who were trying to help her so they called 911 and the police said there was nothing they could do. She was going inside with a guardian, and they could not help the girl and it’s frightening to hear. This bill requires the physician to inform the woman that she has the right to refuse an abortion, that her consent is not voluntary if someone is coercing her and that it’s unlawful for the physician to perform the procedure if it’s not voluntary,” Litjens says.

Litjens says her bill would require the physician to question the patient in private and have her sign a voluntary consent form without anyone else present.

Ok there are two issues with this. First one is brought up--and smacked down--by Rep Sandy Pasch (D-Whitefish Bay). Rep Pasch is also a nurse, btw:

"Let me tell you what the components of informed consent are, that there’s a voluntariness, that’s essential as part of it, that’s already in the informed consent process, that information is provided to the patient and the information needs to be the risks and benefits of the procedure that they’re requesting, the risks and benefits of alternative procedures and the risks and benefits of doing nothing which in this case would be allowing a pregnancy, so which part of that do you think needs to be strengthened?” Pasch asks.

Litjens: “I would like to strengthen it so that that woman is asked those questions or told that information in a room where she doesn’t feel pressured at all. I would like that young girl who was forced to enter an abortion clinic in Milwaukee to have the opportunity to say no."

Pasch: “If the physician doesn’t do it, there could be a felony charge. Who’s going to monitor that physician if they’re all alone in the room?”

Litjens: “ I would assume that the woman’s going to monitor the physician to make sure it’s done because that would give her the opportunity if she’s being coerced by a boyfriend, by a parent, by an abusive stepfather or something of that nature."

Which brings us to the next issue. I see Rep Litjens is all about calling a minor a woman in this aspect. She is all about the rights of a minor to not have to have an abortion if she does not want one. The right to choose "no, it's not what I want". However, in Wisconsin, minors cannot obtain an abortion without the consent of a parent.

So. Wisconsin: no abortion if you're under 18 without parental consent; no parental "interference" if a minor does not want an abortion. Not that I'm saying anyone should have to have an abortion if they do not want one. The point is no one should be forced into a choice they do not want to make by another person--including a parent stopping an abortion.

The other aspect is regarding the ability of a woman to be prescribed mifepristone (RU-486) via web by a doctor when one is not present in office to otherwise do so (a woman still has to come to clinic to access the consult). This is not currently available in Wisconsin but the WI "right to life" groups want to try and head it off before it can be available.

Nothing was decided on the legislation yesterday, except that more discussion is needed.

***

In Illinois, the state is jumping on the mandatory ultrasound bandwagon:

According to Illinois House bill 786, the Ultrasound Opportunity Act, women electing to have abortions will be subject to undergo an invasive sonogram, listen while a technician or the doctor verbally describes in detail what is shown in the sonogram and wait a 24-hour period before receiving the procedure.

The "Ultrasound Opportunity Act"? Really? I bet one of these days some state is going to call it the "Pre-Born Citizen Photo Op Act".

***
We have a theme for the next three states. SPOILER: It's not a fun theme.

In Georgia, Rep. Doug McKillip (R-Eprehensible) has intro'd legislation to ban abortion after 20 weeks gestation. Abortion after then would only be allowed if the person would die otherwise. The bill has not yet gone anywhere.

In Michigan, Rep. Eileen Kowall (R-Idiculous) has intro'd legislation to ban abortion after 20 weeks gestation. Abortion would only be allowed if the person would die otherwise. This bill has a name: "Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act". It also says that any doctor who does an abortion after the 20th week would face felony charges and up to 15 years in prison.

In Arizona, Rep. Kimberly Yee (R-Epugnant) has intro'd legislation to ban abortion after 20 weeks gestation. Abortion would only be allowed if the person would die otherwise. This bill also includes mandatory ultrasound 24 hours beforehand, posting signs in clinics saying that no one can force anyone else to have an abortion, and:

[It] would require the health department to provide a web site that provides a range of information, including alternatives to abortion, medical risks and descriptions of fetuses.

The descriptions would include "pictures or drawings representing the development of unborn children at two-week gestational increments and any relevant information on the possibility of the unborn child's survival."

Because none of that information is available anywhere else!

Anyway, every one of these 20-week gestation bans is based on the idea of "fetal pain", which has been debunked. But who cares about science, amirite?!

***

Just a quick note about federal legislation news with regards to the manufactured controversy over the Affordable Care Act covering birth control. MoJo helpfully points out (emphasis mine):

[T]he central mandate—that most employers have to cover preventative care for women—has been law for over a decade. This point has been completely lost in the current controversy, as Republican presidential candidates and social conservatives claim that Obama has launched a war on religious liberty and the Catholic Church.

Obama's additions to the current law now require business with less than 15 employees have to follow it and no co-pays for anyone.

Why I'm Pro-Choice, and My Boyfriend Is, Too

by Shaker BrianWS, who may or may not become a full-time contributor someday based on a swirling purple vortex of glittery keys only one of which fits into two crumbling locks, one of which opens a door to Shakesville, and the other of which opens a door to a rip in the time-space continuum beyond which is either a parallel universe or a Malkovichian hole into Rick Santorum's brainpan.

[Content Note: Anti-choice views on reproductive rights; disrespect for autonomy and consent.]

I will never need an abortion. It's a fact of my life as a cis gay man in a relationship with another cis gay man, but being fervently pro-choice is very important to me, and it's also very important to me that I found a partner who shares that belief.

I'm pro-choice not only for the women in my life who have had abortions or who one day may need to terminate a pregnancy, but because I've found that a person's view on abortion rights is a really great test to determine how someone feels about bodily autonomy as a whole—and, to that end, what kind of autonomy over my own body I can expect when dealing with that person.

When I was single last summer before meeting my current boyfriend, I had a profile on OkCupid, and one day received a message from a guy who quickly identified himself as a conservative supporter of Ron Paul.

I don't like Ron Paul one bit, so I was hesitant but curious. Knowing what I know now, I have no problem saying that if that happened to me today, there never would've been drinks or dinner or anything. But it didn't happen today.

We often hear, even from people presumed to be liberal allies, about how "both sides are just as bad," and we're trained by the media to think that every opinion is equally worth being heard, and even this progressive feminist was not immune to having internalized those messages.

"If I don't go out with him just because of his politics, then I'd be an asshole," I thought, and I decided to go out and meet him.

I figured that we could have a good time just hanging out and letting it be casual regardless of political affiliation. That worked for a few dates. We didn't much discuss politics, including abortion, although I knew his position, and I found myself actually enjoying his company.

"I'm the next James Carville!" I excitedly told myself, feeling a slight, and now embarrassing, sense of smugness for having been "big enough" to enjoy his company without agreeing with his political views. In doing so, however, I was hiding a huge part of who I am, and a huge part of what I believe to be true and important in this world, just to be able to say I managed to navigate that political divide.

We did that dance for about a month, sharing drinks, movies, dinners, and games about every other day, all while both trying our best to ignore the giant whirring abortion machine in the room.

That's when the wheels came flying off. We were invited to a Pride party at his ex's apartment overlooking the parade route, and we were excited to go to that together. There were plenty of drinks, plenty of amazing new friends to meet, and I was having a great day. We were both worried initially that his ex might be weird about me being there, but it turned out that his ex and I hit it off immediately.

He and I were, in fact, on the back deck, chatting, laughing, and generally having a great day, when another one of the party's hosts came up to me and said, "You might want to go talk to your date; he's really upset right now."

"Why?!" I asked. It was a great day with great company, and nothing seemed like it could go wrong. I went to look for him, to find that he had angrily stormed out of the party. I texted him to find out what was wrong, and it was then that his adherence to a strict conservative ideology became the problem that, deep inside, I always knew it was going to be someday, sooner than later.

He was angry that I was socializing with his ex, and told me that I had humiliated him by being friendly with his ex. Naturally, this made no sense to me—after all, we had accepted an invitation to a party at his ex's house, and learned that our earlier worries about it being uncomfortable were completely unfounded. So unfounded, in fact, that his ex and I were able to act like adults who had never met one another, treat each other with respect, and find out that we actually had a lot in common and enjoyed talking to one another.

The only one who found the situation uncomfortable was the guy I was seeing—the guy who had put us into this position in the first place. I felt a ton of pressure going over to his ex's house that day; it's not easy to be the "new guy" in a tight-knit group of friends when an ex is included. The fact that it wasn't the weirdest day my date and I had ever spent together should have been a huge victory.

Instead, it turned ugly.

He had wanted me to go to this party with him at a place that could have been very uncomfortable for me, and I had made the best of it. He didn't want me to make the best of it for me, though—he wanted me to make the best of it for him. And I had failed to behave as he had desired for me to behave.

As the night wore on, he continued to berate me via text messages and phone calls. He policed my behavior in exacting detail, slut-shamed me for being friendly with his ex, belligerently screamed at me, plainly and simply commanding me to be something more like what he wanted, rather than who I actually am, and to make the choices he wanted me to make, rather than the choices that were right for me.

So clueless, he then demanded that I spend the night at his apartment. I felt afraid, and I felt unsafe. I left and never saw him again.

In the end, it should have come as little surprise to me that he would show his hand like that at some point. But it wasn't until he actually tried to claim what he thought was his right to control my body and my actions that I actually let it all sink in.

And when it was done sinking in, I was left with this: Fuck. That.

Sure, this could have been the jerk behavior of anyone with any political ideology, but I am left with the thought that true belief in rigid conservative anti-choice ideology presents a fundamental problem for those desirous of an egalitarian relationship. The anti-choice position is rooted in a desire to control women's bodies, restrict their ability to act as individuals, and to police their behavior. If my date thinks that control over a woman's body is his right, what guarantee do I have that he would ever think any differently about MY body?

There's an undeniable connection between views on abortion rights and views on bodily autonomy as a whole, and that's why gay men need to care about abortion rights. The same people who will work tirelessly to restrict women's autonomy over their own bodies and choices won't hesitate for a moment to tear mine away, too.

The only body that an anti-choice conservative thinks shouldn't be controlled is his (or her) own.

Being pro-choice means respecting the autonomy of women and other people with uteri over their own bodies, full-stop. There is no halfway. There are no, "...but" qualifiers. You either do—or you don't.

It's not about babies, or whatever other bullshit anti-choicers say to try to pretend that it's about anything other than controlling and policing women's bodies—experience tells me that assholes with rigid anti-choice ideologies based around controlling other people's bodies aren't likely to ever consider exceptions to that rule for me and my body just because I don't have a uterus.

Reproductive Rights Updates: KS, TX, PA, VA, NB, MS, TN, FL, National

Are you ready for, well, a lot of depressing and infuriating news? Because I have it. A lot of it.

Always leading the pack in taking away autonomy from people, the state of Kansas is up first:

Kansas lawmakers have been given six days to consider one of the most sweeping state anti-abortion bills to be introduced.

A Kansas House committee is scheduled to take up a bill Wednesday that would exempt doctors from malpractice suits if they withheld medical information to prevent an abortion. The measure would also take away tax credits for abortion providers, remove tax deductions for the purchase of abortion-related insurance coverage and require women to hear the fetal heartbeat. The bill includes several provisions, which passed in other states and now face federal lawsuits. The bill would also require women be told about potential breast cancer risks from abortions, even though medical experts discount such a connection.

[...]

Among the most contested provisions of the bill is the section that would exempt a doctor from a medical malpractice suit if a woman claims the physician withheld information about potential birth defects to prevent her from having an abortion. In addition, a woman would not be able to sue if she suffers health damage from a pregnancy as a result of information withheld from her to prevent an abortion. A wrongful death suit could still be filed, however, if the mother died.

Oh well gee. Small favors and all that. Even for Kansas this is a hideously appalling, outright hateful piece of legislation. Not being able to sue for malpractice when a doctor refused to disclose that a pregnancy could cause damage--and did? WHAT. Just WHAT.

****

In Texas, Judge Sam Sparks says he "had no choice" but to dismiss a suit against the ultrasound law:

Sparks said his hands were tied by last month's federal appeals court ruling that found the sonogram law to be an appropriate exercise of the state's power to regulate the practice of medicine.

But in his order dismissing the lawsuit by abortion providers, Sparks took issue with the appeals court ruling, saying it "eviscerated" the free speech rights of doctors to support a law that improperly limits a physician's ability to exercise medical judgment.

"The act requires doctors to attempt to discourage their patients from obtaining abortions ... even in cases where the doctors have determined that an abortion is, for any number of reasons, the best medical option," he said in his order.

"This court believes Texas overstepped its legitimate authority when it substituted its medical judgment for that of doctors, and imposed a uniform method of treatment for all patients, rather than allowing physicians to make medically appropriate, case-by-case determinations."

[...]

In Monday's order, Sparks said the law seemed designed to make abortions more difficult to provide and receive, not to inform women about the procedure.

"Informed consent requirements exist to protect the rights of patients and to honor their autonomy, not to provide states with an excuse to impose heavy-handed, paternalistic and impractical restrictions on the practice of medicine," Sparks wrote.

Right the fuck on!

The state reportedly informed clinics that the ultrasound law would start being enforced immediately.

***
In Pennsylvania, the House Health Committee as moved forward Monday with the Orwellian "Women's Right to Know Act", which is a mandatory ultrasound bill:

The Pennsylvania House Health Committee voted yesterday to advance something they’re calling the “Women’s Right to Know Act,” which would allow a woman to take a look at an ultrasound and listen to the fetus’ heartbeat before getting an abortion.

[...]

According to the legislation, the doctor performing the procedure is required to “Position the screen so that the patient is able to view the ultrasound test in its entirety, with a view of her unborn child, while that test is being conducted to determine gestational age,” although, “The patient is not required to view the screen.” Then, two prints of the ultrasound are made. The woman seeking the abortion and the doctor providing the procedure both get a copy. The doctor must tell the woman how old the fetus is and if the heartbeat is normal.

The sonogram is required 24 hours before an abortion, except in cases of rape, incest, emergency or when the pregnancy is less than eight weeks gestation.

***

In Virginia, a couple things. One, a few days ago the senate passed a mandatory sonogram bill, which now goes to the House of Delegates.

Second, that House has passed legislation that cuts off Medicaid funding for abortions.

[The legislation] conforms state policy for Medicaid recipients to a longstanding federal law known as the Hyde Amendment, which forbids government funding for abortions except in cases of rape, incest or the mother’s life.

Virginia is among several states that allow Medicaid to cover abortions, but does so using only state funds.

Democrats said it unfairly singles out low-income women who learn of grossly incapacitating fetal deformities but would have to give birth anyway while wealthier women could terminate their pregnancies under such tragic circumstances.

How much does the GOP hate poor people? SO MUCH. SOOOOOOO MUCH.

***

In Nebraska, they're attempting an administrative run-around to providing funds to Planned Parenthood (see: Ohio, Texas, for other examples).

The bill (LB540) would require the state Department of Health and Human Services to apply for a Medicaid waiver or an amendment to an existing waiver to provide medical assistance for family planning services for low-income residents who earn 185 percent or less of the federal poverty level.

An amendment offered by the Health and Human Services Committee would have provided that no state funds be used to pay for abortions.

Then Lincoln Sen. Tony Fulton dropped another amendment into the mix. Not only could none of the money be spent for abortions, but it could not go to any entity that performs or promotes elective abortions or that affiliates with one that does.

[...]

When asked by Omaha Sen. Brenda Council whether Fulton was targeting Planned Parenthood, he said no, although he understood Planned Parenthood would be the largest organization affected.

"Can you identify any other entity that would fit the description other than Planned Parenthood?" she asked.

"Off the top of my head, I can't," he said.

There could be another one in Omaha, or one that would qualify in the future, he said.

"I think it's problematic that we're singling out an organization, and in many communities, mine included … the only Medicaid providers for low-income women happen to be Planned Parenthood," Council said.

According to Guttmacher, in the state of Nebraska (in 2006) there were this many clinics:

Health department clinics: 0
Community health centers: 1
Planned Parenthood clinics: 5
Hospital outpatient clinics: 8
Other independent clinics: 18

And they provided this many people with contraceptive care (just one--big!--aspect of family planning):

Health department clinics: 0
Community health centers: 1,850
Planned Parenthood clinics: 17,750
Hospital outpatient clinics: 2,500
Other independent clinics: 15,410

Planned Parenthood provided nearly as many clients with care in their five clinics as twenty-seven other clinics combined.

***

In Mississippi, the House there has approved legislation which is called the "Child Protection Act". Besides addressing issues of sexual abuse in schools, it also deals with abortion and minors:

Additionally, House Bill 16 would reaffirm parental consent requirements for minors seeking abortions, and physicians who perform abortions on girls younger than 14 would be required to preserve fetal tissue for DNA to be used in statutory rape or other prosecutorial cases.

"This is a documented problem and this is (another) way to detect abuse," Gipson [Andy, R-Braxton] said.

Gipson said he does not know how much it will cost the state to carry out the effort if it becomes law.

BTW, the state of MS already has pretty much all of these laws on the books.

***

Tennessee, if you recall, voted to defund Planned Parenthood last summer. Last year Shelby County TN was made the news with the fact that they opted to cut off Planned Parenthood and now force the resident poor and un/under-insured to go to a religious group for health care. Well, Planned Parenthood is suing the state:

NASHVILLE, Tenn. — Affiliates of Planned Parenthood are suing the state Health Department to have their funding restored.

Planned Parenthood of Middle and East Tennessee and Planned Parenthood Greater Memphis Region filed the lawsuit Thursday to restore preventive care funding under the HIV Prevention Services and the Syphilis Elimination grant programs.

Planned Parenthood, which also provides abortions, said in a news release that no reason was given for the contracts being terminated in December. It also said no provider was identified as a replacement.

Of course no provider was identified! Because how much does the GOP hate poor people? SOOOOOOO MUCH.

***

In both Florida and national news, today the US House will mark up a bill--that has 78 co-sponsors!--that bans abortion "based on race and sex". Because that's so not a total waste of time and utter bullshit, amirite? How it relates to Florida is that two state congresspeople are attempting to do the same thing:

The United States House of Representatives will today mark up a bill that would outlaw abortions sought because of race or sex.

Late last year, Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz. introduced the Susan B. Anthony and Frederick Douglass Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act of 2011, which would “prohibit discrimination against the unborn on the basis of sex or race, and for other purposes.”

Florida legislators are moving forward a bill that mimics Frank’s proposal. So far, sponsors have not been able to justify a need for the bill, but rather claim it is an effort to protect Florida from becoming a “safe haven” for race- or sex-based abortions.

Yes. I'm totally sure that's exactly what will happen, Florida. You'll become a snowbird AND abortion tourist mecca. Sure.

The "Susan B. Anthony and Frederick Douglass Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act of 2011? WHAT. "Prenatal nondiscrimination"? Really? OFFS. Using Susan B. Anthony and Frederick Douglass as representatives of the sort of people you're "protecting"? I have an idea: how about passing the ERA and not passing onerous voter id laws? Or, here's a wild idea (prepare yourself): how about jobs? Oh, that's right, you have "priorities".

Something Something Ron Paul

[Content Note: Rape culture; encroachments on reproductive rights; violence.]

Yesterday, I wrote about Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul's recent interview with CNN host Piers Morgan in which Paul said he would give a family member who had survived a rape "a shot of estrogen," but only "if it's an honest rape."

scatx has been following up on reactions to this story and its coverage at the tumblr she created expressly for that purpose, Honest Rape. If you'd like to submit your translations of what Ron Paul meant by "honest rape," you can do so here.


My contribution.
Also, as per usual, the violent trolls are coming out in droves in response to scatx's feminist anti-rape activism, threatening and harassing her, thus proving the goddamn point again, and in the interest of balancing that scale a bit, I just want to take a moment to note that scatx is brave and strong and clever and awesome, a total fucking champion, and I am glad to have her on my side.

Something Something Ron Paul

[Content Note: Rape culture; encroachments on reproductive rights; violence.]

I didn't want to bury this in today's Primary Speaking post, because it's too important: Ron Paul's antipathy toward women plumbed new depths during a recent interview with CNN's Piers Morgan, during this extraordinary exchange about his views on abortion and sexual assault:

MORGAN: Here's the dilemma, and it's one I put to Rick Santorum very recently. I was surprised by his answer, although I sort of understood from his belief point of view that he would come up with this.

But it's a dilemma that I am going to put to you. You have two daughters. You have many granddaughters. If one of them was raped -- and I accept it's a very unlikely thing to happen. But if they were, would you honestly look at them in the eye and say they had to have that child if they were impregnated?

PAUL: No. If it's an honest rape, that individual should go immediately to the emergency room. I would give them a shot of estrogen or give them --

MORGAN: You would allow them to abort the baby?

PAUL: It is absolutely in limbo, because an hour after intercourse or a day afterwards, there is no legal or medical problem. If you talk about somebody coming in and they say, well, I was raped and I'm seven months pregnant and I don't want to have anything to do with it, it's a little bit different story.

But somebody arriving in an emergency room saying, I have just been raped and there is no chemical -- there's no medical and there's no legal evidence of a pregnancy --

MORGAN: Life doesn't begin at conception?

PAUL: Life does begin at conception.

MORGAN: Then you would be taking a life.

PAUL: Well, you don't know if you're taking a life either, because this is an area that is -- but to decide everything about abortion and respect for life on this one very, very theoretical condition, where there may have been a life or not a life.

MORGAN: But here's the thing: although it is a hypothetical, it does happen. People do get raped and they do get impregnated. And sometimes they are so ashamed by what's happened that weeks go by before they may even discover they are pregnant.

They have to face this dilemma. And they are going to have a president who has a very, very strong view about this.

PAUL: This is like the proposal that the people who like abortion, endorse abortion because it's the woman's right to her body. You say, well, does that mean one minute before birth, you can kill the baby? I did this on one of the TV programs where some women were opposed to what I was saying.

I said, this nine-pound baby is in the woman. She has the right. She argues her case. I said you would abort this baby because the woman has had unfortunate some circumstances, so the doctor gets paid a handsome fee to kill this nine-pound baby?

Oh, that's not what we're talking about. But that is what they are talking about. They are talking about a human life. So a person immediately after rape, yes. It's a tough one. I won't satisfy everybody there.

But to tell you the truth, what I saw happening in the 1960s and the change in the law and -- no, the change in attitude, people were doing illegal abortions. To me it is a moral problem. It was to change the morality of the '60s, the lack of respect for life, leads to the lack of respect for liberty and all the things that I believe in.

Emphases mine.

There is a lot to unpack there, but let's start with this notion of an "honest rape." First of all, Ron Paul is playing into and promulgating the erroneous narrative that women routinely lie about having been raped. That is flatly false.

Secondly, I will say again that denying access to a legal medical procedure to women is so thoroughly unethical and so thoroughly breaks faith with women and other people with uteri that even if they did have to lie to gain access to abortion, it would be entirely reasonable. If Ron Paul and his fellow exceptioneers want to limit access to safe abortions to people who have been raped, then they should expect women and other people with uteri who are pregnant to lie about having been raped (which, let's note, is fundamentally different than filing a false report against a specific individual). That's not because "bitches be lyin' about rape," as every rape apologist on the planet incessantly claims, but because whatever restrictions are placed on access to safe and legal abortion will force people to find whatever means possible to skirt those restrictions.

And anyone who thinks that's SIMPLY HORRIBLE really needs to take a breath and consider whether they wouldn't tell a lie if the alternatives were a radically life-altering event and/or temporary or permanent injury and/or death.

Then there's Piers Morgan's absurd contention that it's "very unlikely" one of Ron Paul's female relatives would be victimized by sexual violence. Um, no. Unfortunately, that is also flatly false.

But I guess one shouldn't be terribly surprised that Morgan isn't hip to rape statistics when he doesn't even seem to understand how reproduction works. Women and other people with uteri do not receive a magical pregnancy alert from uterus to brain at the precise moment of implantation. Most pregnant people don't know for at least a couple weeks if they're pregnant. That's nothing unique to survivors of rape who "are so ashamed by what's happened."

Certainly, the trauma of rape—of which shame is merely one manifestation—can delay the discovery or acknowledgment of pregnancy, but Morgan's bad math is not only contributing to the preponderance of bad information about how women's bodies work; it's also playing into and promulgating the narrative that women casually delay seeking abortions.

And then there's Ron Paul's laughable contention that "the lack of respect for life," that is, being pro-choice, "leads to the lack of respect for liberty," that is, being anti-choice.

Again: I can't put it more plainly than this: I am not free, if the word is to have any meaning at all, as long as Ron Paul is up in my uterus.

There's still plenty to parse and deconstruct here. Have at it in comments.

[Hat tip to Honest Rape.]

Number of the Day

1.5 million: The number of women and other people with uteri seeking abortions who wouldn't have access to a safe one if Roe v. Wade were overturned.

Let's say, thought experiment. Let's say Roe v. Wade got overturned. There'd be 1.5 million women who had been seeking abortions who can't have a safe one. Someone will have an unsafe one and will die or be damaged for life; some women will have the child and not be capable of taking care of it. And we know that women who have unplanned pregnancies who go on to deliver have a higher risk of complications in pregnancy, high rate of pre-term birth, a higher rate of the children having behavioral difficulty, poor achievement, cycles of poverty, domestic violence. And the whole idea that somehow adoption can solve it all is just not how the American public thinks. Only 1% of women with an unplanned pregnancy go forward with adoption in the US—very, very small. And I hear it from my patients for all different reasons: they never could do it, the interesting thing they say is that they don't trust anybody else to raise their child. Will the child be loved? Will the child be well cared for? Again, it gets to the idea that they understand how important motherhood is—I don't necessarily see out there the American public ready to adopt 1 million babies. So just from a practical point of view, if you do a thought experiment of making it illegal or ridiculously more restricted than it is now, more women will die, more families will suffer, and that's not good. That is not a moral good.

—Dr. Nancy Stanwood, an obstetrician/gynecologist, abortion provider, mother, and board member with the Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health, in an interview with Lola McClure, a registered nurse, about what she does and why.

Study: Abortion Safer Than Childbirth

In what will surprise absolutely no one who knows the first thing about the reproduction of women and other people with uteri, a study by Dr. Elizabeth Raymond from Gynuity Health Projects in New York City and Dr. David Grimes of the University of North Carolina School of Medicine at Chapel Hill has found that legal abortion is safer than childbirth, having a lower mortality rate and fewer complications.

The point isn't, of course, that women and other people with uteri who want children should be persuaded to have abortions instead.

The point is that all the anti-choice rhetoric that pretends pregnancy and childbirth are no big deal, and abortion is extraordinary dangerous, is comprehensive bullshit.

Pregnancy and childbirth do carry risks, and forcing pregnant people who want abortions to face them is cruel and violent.

Today in Rick Santorum Says Something Stupid

[Content Note: This post discusses reproductive rights and sexual violence.]

Rick Santorum says lots of stupid things. I mean, he's basically a one-man stupid things saying machine. If the things that came out of his mouth were a Transformer, they'd transform into a dysfunctional hunk of stupid metal made exclusively of stupid parts with lots of little stupid bits sticking out all over it. The man is full of fuckery, is what I'm saying.

And every time he opens his mouth to disgorge another vomit-chunk of cruel, wretched, compassionless stupidity, it's somehow worse than the previously rancid pile of muck that fell from his lips after being malformed in his contemptibly antipathetic brainpan. To wit:

Standing steadfast as the most socially right-wing candidate in the GOP presidential field, Rick Santorum has repeatedly touted his extreme anti-choice position, which dictates that abortion should be uniformly illegal, even in cases of rape or incest. He even suggested that physicians who provide abortions to such victims should be criminally charged.

Last Friday, CNN's Piers Morgan asked Santorum to clarify his reasoning behind such a callous position. Insisting that "it's not a matter of religious values," Santorum explained that sexual assault victims should "accept this horribly created" pregnancy because it is "nevertheless a gift in a very broken way" and that, when it comes down to it, a victim just has "to make the best out of a bad situation":

SANTORUM: Well, you can make the argument that if she doesn't have this baby, if she kills her child, that that, too, could ruin her life. And this is not an easy choice. I understand that. As horrible as the way that that son or daughter and son was created, it still is her child. And whether she has that child or doesn't, it will always be her child. And she will always know that. And so to embrace her and to love her and to support her and get her through this very difficult time, I've always, you know, I believe and I think the right approach is to accept this horribly created — in the sense of rape — but nevertheless a gift in a very broken way, the gift of human life, and accept what God has given to you. As you know, we have to, in lots of different aspects of our life. We have horrible things happen. I can't think of anything more horrible. But, nevertheless, we have to make the best out of a bad situation.

The problem with Santorum's sense of humanity is that it doesn't seem to extend to the victim.

Yes. Indeed, that seems to be the problem with virtually every position Santorum holds: His definition of humanity almost always excludes women and other people with uteri.

As always, I do dearly love (read: detest with the fiery passion of 10,000 suns) the fact that Rick Santorum is so catastrophically incapable of self-reflection that he is able to acknowledge that rape (forcing a woman to do something with her body she doesn't want to do) is a Terrible Thing, while simultaneously asserting that the denial of abortion (forcing a woman to do something with her body she doesn't want to do) is a Moral Imperative.

I'm really hard-pressed to see why I should be any less contemptuous of a man who sits at a big mahogany desk in Washington making decisions about my body without my consent than I should be of a man who used physical force to make decisions about my body without my consent.

Undoubtedly, Mr. Santorum would be outraged and horrified to be compared, even obliquely, to a rapist.

As well he should be. I am horrified to have to make it.

Of course, a man who holds the position that he should be able to legislate away my bodily autonomy and supersede my consent about what happens to my body shouldn't be too goddamned surprised by the comparison.

Pro-Choice

I support choice for a very simple reason: I want it. I want choice for myself, and I want choice for other people. And I trust those people to make the best choices for themselves. That's about the long and the short of it.

All the rest—the hand-wringing, the shaming, the religion, the exceptioneering, the assertions of certitude about when life begins—is just so much noise, just so much obfuscating bluster, just so many different ways of qualifying why, exactly, it is that women and other people with uteri supposedly aren't fit to make decisions for themselves about their reproduction.

I trust women, and the only question I have for someone who rejects choice is: Why don't you?

Quote of the Day

"President Obama's record of support for abortion is radical and extreme."—Rick Santorum, in an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal about his unassailable anti-choiceyness.

LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! Etc.

If only!

I can't imagine a better way to celebrate the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade than with a presidential election in which a candidate who has remained silent while a record number of anti-abortion restrictions have been passed all across the country is cast as a "radical and extreme" defender of abortion rights by a candidate who would consign women to forced pregnancies and unsafe abortions and calls himself pro-life.

What a great country we live in!

By the way, there are loads of great quotes in that piece. I also really loved this one: "I am disappointed that President Obama, who rightfully fights for civil rights, refuses to recognize the civil rights of the unborn in his country."

Yes, how terrible. So let us elect someone who doesn't give a flying flunderton about the civil rights of half the nation's population. Awesome.

Quote of the Day

[Content Note: Reproductive rights encroachments.]

"Burden schmurden!"—Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. That is not actually a direct quote, but it may as well be.

Have I mentioned that the anti-choice movement, having gained momentum with the unilateral support of no less than the Republican Party, parts of the Democratic Party, and 4-5 members of the Supreme Court, is nothing less than state-sponsored terrorism in defense of an inherently violent ideology? 'Cuz it is.

[H/T to Misty.]

Reproductive Rights Updates: New Hampshire, Ohio, Kansas, Texas

First up we have New Hampshire. Last year the state made news because it denied contract with Planned Parenthood (and thus, clinics couldn't dispense contraception). The federal government stepped in on that one. Well, enter round two of this.

A bill banning public funding of Planned Parenthood and other groups that provide elective abortions passed out of the New Hampshire House yesterday with a 60-vote majority, as Republicans rejected a report by the committee assigned to study the issue but fell short of the support needed to override a potential veto by the governor.

[...]

"For many New Hampshire women, Planned Parenthood is the only affordable option for health care. This legislation puts at risk basic access to cost-effective, preventive services such as cancer screenings, breast exams, access to birth control and other disease prevention services," said Jennifer Frizzell, Planned Parenthood of Northern New England's senior policy adviser, in a statement after the vote.[...]

Republican Rep. Susan DeLemus of Rochester was first to speak on the floor in support of the bill.

"As a sovereign citizen, I do not ever want to contribute to the stopping of a baby's heart with my tax dollars," she said.

First, "sovereign citizen"? What? Who talks like that? Second: problem! See, Medicaid covers abortion in very, very, very limited cases. Your legislation?

The bill prevents the Department of Health and Human Services from entering into a contract with any organization that provides abortions not funded by Medicaid, which covers the procedure in cases of rape, incest or when the mother's life is in danger.

So your tax dollars? Never funded any abortion at Planned Parenthood (or other clinic, office, or hospital) that wasn't already covered--and still covered & paid for--by Medicaid. Your "tax dollars", oh Sovereign Citizen, are STILL paying for abortion in the limited cases that they were already. Whooops! You don't know what you're talking about are supporting legislation that you appear to be ignorant of!

The House, in passing this bill, blew off its own committee (made up of a 2:1 republican majority) report that recommended killing it. The bill now goes to the Senate. Governor John Lynch is outright opposed to the legislation and the House did not provide a veto-proof vote.

***

In Ohio, the asinine "heartbeat" legislation is going to get another hearing in the state senate after the primaries:

COLUMBUS, Ohio — The leader of the Ohio Senate says hearings on a bill that would impose the nation's strictest abortion limit will resume after the state's March 6 primary.

Senate President Tom Niehaus (NEE'-hows) told reporters on Wednesday that his chamber would take up the measure after the primary contests. He did not further explain the timing or decision.

So now you know what I will be writing about come March!

***

In Kansas, where abortion and draining the state of funds via lawsuits over legislation appear to be an obsession with certain legislators, the state House is moving forward with the odious "personhood" nonsense.

More than two dozen members of the Kansas House of Representatives have endorsed an amendment to the state constitution that would make abortion illegal in the state, potentially posing a constitutional challenge to the U.S. Supreme Court precedent set by Roe v. Wade.

The proposed amendment, which is expected to be introduced in the House this session, is the latest set of "personhood" legislation being weighed by state lawmakers. If passed by voters in November, the amendment would guarantee the rights of "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" to individuals of all ages -- including the unborn -- by declaring that life begins the moment a woman's egg is fertilized.

Same tired stuff there. BUT! Check out what they're putting ON THE BALLOT (emphasis mine):

An explanation of the measure that would printed on the ballot in November emphasizes that a vote against it would not amend the state constitution, meaning "the current federally mandated legal status of preborn humans would remain that of a class of human beings that can intentionally be killed."

ON. THE. BALLOT. Gee, that's NOT AT ALL misleading, biased bullshit now it it?

The bill, however, has to pass by 2/3 majority before voters get to see that garbage nightmare of leading, emotionally-charged bullshit.

The article ends with noting:

Personhood efforts have recently been introduced in Virginia, Nevada, and Ohio. Similar efforts are also underway in California, Montana, Arkansas, Florida and Colorado.

***

Deep in the heart of Texas, poor, un- and under-insured people are SOL. This is according to a report released by the Dept. of State Health Services.

Following a legislative session where lawmakers slashed funding for family planning and targeted Planned Parenthood, the Texas Department of State Health Services (DSHS) has released a much-reduced list of organizations that will receive state dollars to provide birth control, STD testing and cervical and breast cancer screenings for the state's poorest women.

Between now and March 31, 2013, 41 womens' health providers will receive a total of $12.4 million, down from 71 agencies in the last biennium.

[...]

In the last legislative session, lawmakers gutted family planning funding for all providers by two-thirds, from $111.5 million during the 2010-2011 biennium to $37.9 million over the next two years.

[...]

DSHS reported that 12 women's health applicants were denied funding because their regions were already covered by “tier one” providers. For instance, the Lone Star Community Health Center clinics in Montgomery County didn’t receive funding because their area is already covered by clinics associated with the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston.

Williams said even though Planned Parenthood clinics are not on the list of the agency's 41 official contractors, three Planned Parenthood chapters are receiving some temporary funding over the next few months. In those cases, either no one else from their regions applied, or other applicants didn't meet the criteria for funding. Williams said the state still has about $2 million available in its family planning budget, and has posted a request for additional applicants for that money.

“We want to make sure that we are adhering to legislative intent and that women are able to get care seamlessly,” Williams said. “The re-compete is to make sure other entities, such as associations, were aware of the opportunity to apply for these funds.”

[...]

Even among those who received a grant, there are concerns that the state cut too deeply into a program that used to serve 220,000 women every year. Under the current budget, DSHS estimates about 60,000 people will be able to continue to receive birth control and disease testing.

Lone Star Circle of Care, an FQHC with clinics throughout Central Texas, will receive $322,488 over the next 14 months — enough to cover only 20 percent of the family planning costs the clinic incurred in 2011. The state used to provide enough funding to cover between 70 to 80 percent of the clinic's services.

“It’s not enough compared to the demand we have for these services, so we’re seeking alternative sources of funding to cover the shortfall,” said Rebekah Haynes, Lone Star’s spokeswoman.

But at least Planned Parenthood is barely getting any money, amirite?!?!

***

In related news, a new study that was published today in the Lancet shows that abortion rates--particularly unsafe abortions--are higher where contraception is hard to come by and where abortion has been made illegal.

Abortion rates are higher in countries where the procedure is illegal and nearly half of all abortions worldwide are unsafe, with the vast majority in developing countries, a new study concludes.

Experts couldn't say whether more liberal laws led to fewer procedures, but said good access to birth control in those countries resulted in fewer unwanted pregnancies.

The global abortion rate remained virtually unchanged from 2003 to 2008, at about 28 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15 to 44, a total of about 43.8 million abortions, according to the study. The rate had previously been dropping since 1995.

About 47,000 women died from unsafe abortions in 2008, and another 8.5 million women had serious medical complications. Almost all unsafe abortions were in developing countries, where family planning and contraceptive programs have mostly levelled off.

[...]

Abortion rates were lowest in Western Europe 12 per 1,000 and highest in Eastern Europe 43 per 1,000. The rate in North America was 19 per 1,000. Sedgh [Gilda, senior researcher at the Guttmacher Institute] said she and colleagues found a link between higher abortion rates and regions with more restrictive legislation, such as in Latin America and Africa. They also found that 95 to 97 per cent of abortions in those regions were unsafe.

The authors defined unsafe abortion as any procedure done by people lacking needed skills or in places that don't meet minimal medical standards. Sedgh said some women in Africa resort to using broken soda bottles or taking strong doses of medicines or herbal drugs to induce abortions.

"It is precisely where abortion is illegal that it must become safer," wrote Beverly Winikoff and Wendy R. Sheldon of the Gynuity Health Projects in New York, in an accompanying commentary.

Experts said increasing birth control options for women in poor countries, like providing long-acting implants, would make a big difference.

"Wherever we have made better contraception available in the countries where we work, hundreds of women will walk hours to get it," said Dana Hovig, CEO of Marie Stopes International, a family planning organization. He was not connected to the study.

All across this country, legislators are attempting to reduce access to contraception and eliminate abortion entirely (as a legal and safe procedure). They defy logic and science and general humanity. And they do not care.


As an aside, none of these posts would exist if SOPA and PIPA were to pass. None.

Woman's Work

For a very long time, Democrats' agreement with progressive women was this: Vote for us, and we will be your champion. In practical terms, despite important pieces of legislation like the Violence Against Women Act and the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, being women's champion has largely meant making sure that progress women made wasn't allowed to backslide by standing between progressive women and the enforcers of the Patriarchy in all their guises—conservatism, religion, tradition.

But decades have passed with women on average still making less than men, still widely and primarily victimized by sexual violence (and still vanishingly unlikely to see justice for those crimes against them), still disproportionately affected by the nation's failure to provide a comprehensive and robustly funded social safety net, by unemployment, by food insecurity, by the lack of universal healthcare, by the lack of equal opportunities, by the lack of sensible and fair family-work policies. What social progress does happen frequently comes at the expense of women's reproductive rights.

Women who have multiple axes of oppression—women of color, women with disabilities, women in same-sex partnerships, women who are trans*, fat women, poor women, et. al.—are at increased risk of being marginalized and under-served by their government.

A government whose national legislative body, meant to be representative of the people, is still less than 20% female.

In recent elections, the Democrats' promise to progressive women has been reduced to ensuring (and only when it's politically expedient) that Roe vs. Wade would not be overturned, even as the GOP diligently works to render that ruling an empty statute.

Last spring, Shark-fu and I were talking about the blitz of anti-choice legislation in state legislatures across the nation, and she was telling me about lobbying in Jefferson City, Missouri—one of the many places bills limiting abortion rights are being considered. (The following has been published with her permission.)

Shark-fu: Jeff City was a train wreck. SEIU and others were there trying to stop the right to work bullshit. We were there trying to stop the 20 week abortion ban. And a whole bunch of losers were there showering the House and Senate with praise for giving it to the works and taking away women's rights. Ugh. I had a state Senator tell me that he "has" to vote for abortion restrictions so he can get other stuff done. The price of entry into negotiations with the MO GOP is women's reproductive freedom. I'm disgusted and dreaming of Canada.

Liss: "The price of entry into negotiations with the MO GOP is women's reproductive freedom." This is so depressing. I just don't even know what to say anymore. As I'm sure you know, the same legislation is making its way through the statehouse in Indiana. I'm not only dreaming of Canada; I'm dreaming of menopause, so I don't have to worry about the possibility of ever needing an abortion.

Shark-fu: OMG, it's so funny that you mention menopause! On the drive back yesterday I decided to write a post about how amazingly liberating it is to no longer have a uterus—every time I read a heinous bill I realize that they can't touch me. Sadly, plenty of the bills still apply to my post-hyster self. But they can't force me to get pregnant and that's so damn liberating it's sad.

Liss: If the fact that diminished cis female reproductive capacity (whether via hysterectomy, menopause, or elsewise) feels liberating for feminist women doesn't plainly expose how TOTALLY FUCKED UP the GOP's war on uteri is, I don't know what possibly could.

And then we lolsobbed forever.

This, then, is the situation in which we find ourselves: We are demoralized to the point of imagining, if only in passing, life in another country, or in another body, because we have been abandoned by the only one of the two nationally electable major parties who were even ostensibly on our side, who have negotiated away our alliance because doing so is the price of entry into doing business with the other party.

There is a presidential election coming up. The Democrats will not only want our votes, but expect them. And male partisans, having not learned the lessons of the last election, will admonish any feminist/womanist voter who does not axiomatically promise to give her vote to the Democrats that she is a fool who doesn't even understand her own rights or recognize her own best interests. We will be excoriated for even considering abandoning the Democratic Party, as if the Democratic Party did not abandon us first.

But this is not a post about voting. This is a post about the way reproductive rights are regarded—by the women who are actually affected by them, and by the party who purports to be our ally, and the cavernous divide in between.

My right to control my reproduction—and the respect for my bodily autonomy, agency, and consent that is embedded within that right—is central to my sense of self and my worth to my community and country. I can't put it any more plainly that that. The value of my very humanity is predicated on that right.

That right is not some piece of shit bit of legislation to be used as a dangled carrot during elections and used as a bargaining chip to be negotiated away in between.

And I'm angry that the party meant to champion women's rights doesn't see it the same way. I'm angry that there are so many male Democratic partisans (and not a few women) who claim to be progressive and yet think that whether I am trusted to make the best decisions about my own reproduction isn't a big fucking deal. Or want to lecture me about what a Big Fucking Deal it is when they're trying to bully me into voting for the party whose indifference allows the GOP to chip away at the scope of that right.

If it's not a big fucking deal to you every fucking day, then don't come shouting at me about it every four years like you're Professor Roe V. Wade, foremost expert in Abortionology at Gliberal University.

And if it is a big fucking deal to you every fucking day, then get busy getting involved.

Believe me, I know: Getting involved stinks. You're forced to deal with people who, on the best end, are deliberately obtuse bullies and, on the worst end, spam your inbox with pictures of dead fetuses. These are not pleasant folks, and I'd like to avoid them myself.

Unfortunately, that would necessitate closing up shop, putting down my teaspoon, and going silent. And then, somehow, magically not being a woman who lives in a patriarchy anymore.

This is the hard truth for progressive men who care about reproductive rights: When you leave the public fight to others, you're leaving it mostly to women.

I'll give you a moment to contemplate the many ways in which treating the feminist/womanist fight for reproductive rights as "woman's work" is some fucked-up irony, right there.

*a moment*

Now here's the other thing about leaving the reproductive rights fight to the ladies: Misogynists don't respect women. They don't listen to women; they won't acknowledge a woman's authority on her own lived experiences; they're not going to learn anything from women, and certainly not feminist/womanist women.

Misogynist anti-choicers who believe women to be less than need to hear that they're terribly, infuriatingly, and demonstrably wrong from men. Publicly. Passionately. As loud as the loud, so very loud, voices on the other side. One of the ways their self-reassuring bullshit works is via the effective void of male dissension, which supports their erroneous belief that they are the "objective" arbiters of womanhood.

They count on feminist men never showing up en masse for the main event.

They count on the Democratic Party being too squeamish, too spineless, too unprincipled, too apathetic to stand up for reproductive rights, unyieldingly.

They count on reproductive rights being the first bargaining chip on the table.

They count on the still almost entirely male leadership of the Democratic Party and the vast number of male Democratic partisans giving themselves permission to not get publicly involved, or to get publicly involved only when it's convenient and not all that risky and not all that hard.

They count on men trading on that privilege of not having to get involved.

They count on Democratic partisans being more interested in hectoring dispossessed progressive women than in being their allies and fighting this fight alongside them, every day.

They count on reproductive rights being treated as Woman's Work, and thus being devalued as woman's work inevitably is.

They are trying to overwhelm and demoralize the (mostly) women to whom this work is being left.

If the Democratic Party wants to retain its alliance with women, they'd better send reinforcements. And soon.

By way of suggestion, I recommend that the allegedly feminist staunch defender of reproductive rights, President Barack Obama, who happens to be currently seeking reelection, give some of his fancy speech-making on behalf of the 52% of the nation whose rights are being eroded. The states enacting a record number of abortion restrictions last year seems like it warrants his comment. Ahem.

[This piece was originally published in similar form April 4, 2011. It's particularly relevant again lately.]

Chip, Chip, Chip...

[Content Note: Legislative encroachments on reproductive rights; invasive medical requirements; rape culture.]

Andrea Grimes reports that the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled Texas can enforce its forced trans-vaginal sonogram law while the heinous legislation is challenged in court.

I'll just refer you to the post I wrote when the same shit started in Oklahoma (where a similar law is being challenged, but which the state has been disallowed from enforcing in the meantime), and I'll reiterate here the basis of my unyielding objection: Compelling a person to undergo an unnecessary vaginal probe to acquire a legal medical procedure is fucking rape.

And that was true even before the US Justice Department revised its definition of rape to make it patently obvious that this is, indeed, rape—at least if the concept of consent is to have any real meaning at all.

A woman or trans man who cannot access a legal medical procedure without submitting hir body to a vaginal probe cannot be said to be meaningfully consenting. Consent requires a choice.

Consent requires a choice, because consent without a choice is not consent; it's coercion.

[H/T to @scatx.]

Chipping Away at Roe

[Content Note: Anti-choice legislation.]

In totally unrelated news to the post below (she said acerbically), the Guttmacher Institute has reported to no one's surprise that states enacted a record number of abortion restrictions last year.

In the 50 states combined, legislators introduced more than 1,100 reproductive health and rights-related provisions, a sharp increase from the 950 introduced in 2010. By year's end, 135 of these provisions had been enacted in 36 states, an increase from the 89 enacted in 2010 and the 77 enacted in 2009.

...Fully 68% of these new provisions—92 in 24 states—-restrict access to abortion services, a striking increase from last year, when 26% of new provisions restricted abortion. The 92 new abortion restrictions enacted in 2011 shattered the previous record of 34 adopted in 2005.

I know, believe me I know, that I am a broken record, but restricting abortion consigns women and trans men to use their bodies to carry pregnancies to term against their wills, which is an act of violence.

The anti-choice movement has gained momentum with the unilateral support of the Republican Party, turning what was once a radical fringe movement into nothing less than state-sponsored terrorism, in defense of an inherently violent ideology.

This issue must be a centerpiece of President Obama's campaign, or he is going to have to win without me. I will never hope that he does not resoundingly trounce whatever Mitt Romney eventually wins the primary and runs as the Republican nominee. Between President Obama and a Republican, I want Obama to win. But I will not be able in good conscience to actively and affirmatively support a candidate who does not meaningfully address a domestic terrorist campaign being waged against pro-choice women and our allies.

That is asking me to participate in my own marginalization, to support a threat against my own safety. And that I simply cannot do.

Please, Mr. President. Speak up for us.

Not Terrorism (But Should Be)

[Content Note: Anti-choice terrorism.]

Fred Clark at Slacktivist has an important follow-up to my post yesterday about the arrest of Bobby Joe Rogers for setting the fire at a women's clinic in Pensacola, Florida. Fred looks at what happened and what the definition of domestic terrorism in the US Code is, and asks: "How is that not domestic terrorism?"

Good question.

There's still time for federal authorities to amend the charges. Let us hope that they do.

Otherwise, feminist women and our pro-choice allies might get the impression that our government doesn't give a fuck about us. Ahem.

Not a Terrorist

[Content Note: Anti-choice terrorism.]

On Tuesday, I wrote about a fire at a women's clinic in Pensacola, Florida, which had previously been bombed twice and was the site of the fatal shootings of Dr. John Britton and clinic escort James Barrett.

Today, Bobby Joe Rogers, 41, of Tuscaloosa, Alabama, was arrested and federally charged with one count of Damaging a Building by Fire or Explosive, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years.

He is (allegedly) a terrorist. This was terrorism.

Both Sides Are Blah Blah Yawn

by Shaker TC

[Comment Note: This post contains discussion of anti-choice narratives and violence.]

I have mixed feelings about the public radio show "This American Life," but a segment in their Nemeses episode on the abortion debate in Boston made me nauseated to the core of my being. (The transcript is here; bring a barf bag.) "This American Life" decides to double down on the Jon Stewart-eqsue "both sides do it" meme for the abortion debate. Ira Glass is oozing with unacknowledged privilege as he talks about the attempt for the two sides of the debate to find common ground. The frame of the entire piece is that both sides of the debate are equally responsible for the dynamic.

Here's the kicker for me: This "both sides do it" frame is in the context of an abortion clinic shooting.

Along with Ira Glass, the host of "This American Life," the key commentator on the issue is white male academic Peter Coleman from the International Center for Cooperation and Conflict Resolution at Columbia University.

Peter Coleman: I think the pro-life movement was ashamed and infuriated by what had happened. I think the pro-choice movement was terrified and traumatized. And so the governor, the archdiocese, called for dialogue.

Notice that the people directly affected by the shooting weren't calling for dialogue with a movement with which the killers identified and were affiliated. But they were nonetheless obliged to participate in unwanted bridge-building to make the patriarchy feel better.

Naturally that bridge had to be built on the backs of women. All of the folks involved in the dialogue were women—on both sides of the debate. According to ivory tower academic Coleman, one of the two men discussing this enforced dialogue between women, the worst thing that could happen is blame and responsibility, because that's for mean harpies.

Peter Coleman: At first, the conversation was hard. Even though they agreed to some guidelines and how to have this conversation in a way that they felt would be constructive, it was hard to hold to those guidelines initially.

Ira Glass: And you write about that, that there was a lot of finger pointing back and forth. Everybody thought, we're not going to do any finger pointing. But in fact, they couldn't help themselves is what you write.

Peter Coleman: It's what they did. It's what they had been doing. They were used to doing it. They knew the talking points. And it was so hard to try to put those away.

So, the abortion rights supporters, whose community is being terrorized, are disallowed from feeling that members of a movement with which a terrorist was involved could or should be held accountable. That's just finger-pointing.

Then Ira Glass decides to play clueless person of privilege by framing the whole thing as a silly conflict that people were irrationally holding onto—as if there weren't VALID REASONS for animosity toward anti-choice proponents like, I don't know, people who shoot people associated with abortion clinics.

Ira Glass: These are precisely the conflicts that Peter Coleman studies. They're the conflicts where whatever the original dispute happened to be about, everybody has moved past that long ago. And things have snowballed. And people started to organize their identities around the conflict.

As an abortion rights activist, I know damn well what I'm fighting for. It's not some long-held grudge. It's the bodily autonomy of women. Refer to any one of Melissa's awesome posts on Jon Stewart on why this attitude of "stop the bickering" when it comes to issues of human rights is so nauseating. If Ira Glass believes that the issue of abortion rights is based on some petty grudge that everyone has moved past, he has the empathy of a rock.
And then comes the mother of all victim-blaming.

Peter Coleman: Because what did happen is that the rhetoric changed. The conversations that would happen publicly around abortion, around pro-life, pro-choice, lost a lot of the edge and the vitriol in the community that it had had prior to the shooting and prior to the dialogue process.

Ira Glass: Because these women were leaders in those movements on both sides and—

Peter Coleman: They consciously decided that part of what they had done is contribute to the conditions where an event like this could take place.

Yep, apparently, abortion rights folks share responsibility for an anti-abortion shooter coming into their offices. The pro-choice advocates had to do some real soul-searching to see how they contributed to a shooting happening in their clinic to their clients, I'm sure.

There's a whole lot o' privilege playing out in this entire piece, from the unacknowledged point that the people pushing for dialogue were patriarchal institutions, to Ira Glass' characterizing an issue of the bodily autonomy of half the population as something people have "moved past," to the piece saying that both sides saw they had a role in the shooting. Poor Ira Glass, his only wish is that the layDEEEZ play nice.

This was completely nauseating and further proof that the "liberal" public radio is pretty damn unfriendly to progressive women.