[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
Tampilkan postingan dengan label reproductive rights. Tampilkan semua postingan
Tampilkan postingan dengan label reproductive rights. Tampilkan semua postingan
Jumat, 10 Februari 2012
Kamis, 09 Februari 2012
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.
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.]
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.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.
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."
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.]
Teaspoon Time
Shaker Ashley in N.C. emails (which I am quoting with her permission): "I just wanted you to know that I called the White House today regarding tho odious Catholic Bishops (after getting busy signals all morning, I finally made it through this afternoon), and the woman who answered the phone was so happy to hear from me. She said I was one of the only people calling in support of reproductive freedom."
To the phones, Shakers!
White House comment line: (202) 456-1111
Related: Steered Wrong By Googling "Abortion Services"? It's No Accident. The civil war over reproductive rights is getting uglier by the day, and it was hideous already. We need to make sure we don't lose this one with the White House. Let's make sure President Obama hears from the USian majority who support reproductive freedom.
To the phones, Shakers!
White House comment line: (202) 456-1111
Related: Steered Wrong By Googling "Abortion Services"? It's No Accident. The civil war over reproductive rights is getting uglier by the day, and it was hideous already. We need to make sure we don't lose this one with the White House. Let's make sure President Obama hears from the USian majority who support reproductive freedom.
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:
***
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.
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:
***
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:
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):
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.Because "a female" just doesn't know anything about "what a pregnancy really is", amirite?
"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."
***
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.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:
“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.
"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.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.
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."
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.Because none of that information is available anywhere else!
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."
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.
Rabu, 08 Februari 2012
Breaking Nooz
The US Conference of Catholic Bishops says birth control is more powerful than god. You heard it here first.
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.
[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.
And It's a Group With Actual Members
Lest anyone get the impression that Bill Donohue and his one-man outrage operation, the Catholic League, or even a serious organization like the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, reflect the entirety of opinion on the issue of reproductive rights, and making birth control available via healthcare plans, Catholics for Choice have joined with 19 other religious groups to sign a letter supporting the Obama administration's position on contraceptive coverage.
The letter can be read here (pdf).
In a statement, Jon O'Brien of Catholics for Choice said that the letter "shows what those of us who work in the field know only too well. Some of the strongest supporters for family planning are in the religious community. We know that the vast majority of all American women use and support access to family planning, including 98 percent of sexually active Catholic women. The loudest voices in the Catholic community are those of the priests and bishops who know that they are being ignored when it comes to their teachings on family planning. They may be the loudest, but we know they also represent a tiny minority of Catholics."
I hope President Obama is listening.
They are loud, but they are a minority. And, most importantly, they are wrong.
The letter can be read here (pdf).
In a statement, Jon O'Brien of Catholics for Choice said that the letter "shows what those of us who work in the field know only too well. Some of the strongest supporters for family planning are in the religious community. We know that the vast majority of all American women use and support access to family planning, including 98 percent of sexually active Catholic women. The loudest voices in the Catholic community are those of the priests and bishops who know that they are being ignored when it comes to their teachings on family planning. They may be the loudest, but we know they also represent a tiny minority of Catholics."
I hope President Obama is listening.
They are loud, but they are a minority. And, most importantly, they are wrong.
Selasa, 07 Februari 2012
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:
****
In Texas, Judge Sam Sparks says he "had no choice" but to dismiss a suit against the ultrasound law:
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:
***
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.
***
In Nebraska, they're attempting an administrative run-around to providing funds to Planned Parenthood (see: Ohio, Texas, for other examples).
***
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:
***
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:
***
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 "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".
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.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.
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.
****
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.Right the fuck on!
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.
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.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.
[...]
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.
***
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.How much does the GOP hate poor people? SO MUCH. SOOOOOOO MUCH.
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.
***
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.According to Guttmacher, in the state of Nebraska (in 2006) there were this many clinics:
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.
Health department clinics: 0And they provided this many people with contraceptive care (just one--big!--aspect of family planning):
Community health centers: 1
Planned Parenthood clinics: 5
Hospital outpatient clinics: 8
Other independent clinics: 18
Health department clinics: 0Planned Parenthood provided nearly as many clients with care in their five clinics as twenty-seven other clinics combined.
Community health centers: 1,850
Planned Parenthood clinics: 17,750
Hospital outpatient clinics: 2,500
Other independent clinics: 15,410
***
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.BTW, the state of MS already has pretty much all of these laws on the books.
"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.
***
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.Of course no provider was identified! Because how much does the GOP hate poor people? SOOOOOOO MUCH.
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.
***
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.Yes. I'm totally sure that's exactly what will happen, Florida. You'll become a snowbird AND abortion tourist mecca. Sure.
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.
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.
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.
Choice Is Scary!
So, the Catholic Church leadership (and one-man outrage machine Bill Donohue, who continues to be treated as if he represents people other than himself; I am thisclose to starting a "Feminist League" to see if I can get as much attention with obnoxious press releases as he can) are all still angrily pooping their pants over the new requirement to cover birth control in health insurance policies for their employees, even though a majority of the church's parishioners (especially the women) reject their position.
I have a few observations about this:
1. I cannot stress enough how strongly I believe religious institutions do not warrant tax exempt status in this nation, and the fact that this explicitly political position is not even a breach of the exemption underlines how absurd the policy really is. They are political entities every bit as much as this community is, granted special rights only because their political activities are justified by god-belief.
2. This entire debacle exposes what complete balderdash the Church's concept of "faith" really is, because its leaders clearly have no faith in their own adherents to make choices consistent with the Church's anti-contraception doctrine. They'd rather restrict any and all reproductive choice altogether, including access to contraceptives, denying the free will with which their god supposedly imbued his human creations. They don't give a fuck about faith; they're interested in control.
3. Catholic women make the best choices for themselves irrespective of Church doctrine because that's what women do. Further evidence, not that any was needed, that women and other people with uteri will take whatever measures they need to take to not be pregnant when they don't want to be pregnant.
4. This requirement is categorically not a violation of the Catholic Church's right to practice its religion. Catholic organizations in the US (which are not Catholic churches) do not hire only Catholic employees. Catholic hospitals, for example, have in their employ doctors, nurses, techs, orderlies, admin staff, etc. from all different religious and atheistic traditions, most of which do not share the Catholic Church's prohibition on birth control. That's the cost of doing business in a multicultural nation. If the Catholic Church doesn't like the idea of having to provide required services to non-Catholic people, then they can pack up and take their money-making enterprises to Vatican City.
5. Which, of course, still wouldn't make them happy, because individual Catholic people still have free will and should have the right to express that free will, even when it contradicts Church doctrine. If allowing free will is good enough for god, it oughta be good enough for the Catholic Church. Yeesh.
I have a few observations about this:
1. I cannot stress enough how strongly I believe religious institutions do not warrant tax exempt status in this nation, and the fact that this explicitly political position is not even a breach of the exemption underlines how absurd the policy really is. They are political entities every bit as much as this community is, granted special rights only because their political activities are justified by god-belief.
2. This entire debacle exposes what complete balderdash the Church's concept of "faith" really is, because its leaders clearly have no faith in their own adherents to make choices consistent with the Church's anti-contraception doctrine. They'd rather restrict any and all reproductive choice altogether, including access to contraceptives, denying the free will with which their god supposedly imbued his human creations. They don't give a fuck about faith; they're interested in control.
3. Catholic women make the best choices for themselves irrespective of Church doctrine because that's what women do. Further evidence, not that any was needed, that women and other people with uteri will take whatever measures they need to take to not be pregnant when they don't want to be pregnant.
4. This requirement is categorically not a violation of the Catholic Church's right to practice its religion. Catholic organizations in the US (which are not Catholic churches) do not hire only Catholic employees. Catholic hospitals, for example, have in their employ doctors, nurses, techs, orderlies, admin staff, etc. from all different religious and atheistic traditions, most of which do not share the Catholic Church's prohibition on birth control. That's the cost of doing business in a multicultural nation. If the Catholic Church doesn't like the idea of having to provide required services to non-Catholic people, then they can pack up and take their money-making enterprises to Vatican City.
5. Which, of course, still wouldn't make them happy, because individual Catholic people still have free will and should have the right to express that free will, even when it contradicts Church doctrine. If allowing free will is good enough for god, it oughta be good enough for the Catholic Church. Yeesh.
Senin, 06 Februari 2012
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:
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.]
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.Emphases mine.
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.
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.]
Selasa, 31 Januari 2012
News I Don't Want to Write About
[Content Note: War, reproductive rights legislation, rape culture, violence, misogyny.]
Here is all the news I don't want to write about today!
There is the BIG NEWS that Iran is totally going to attack the US! It's true! Or not! It seems like I've heard this story before: The administration of a first-term president before a hotly contested election says that US intelligence has found thatIraq Iran is developing nuclear capabilities with intent to attack the US and/or US interests, and there are UN weapons inspections, with which Iraq Iran is cooperating, but the belligerent rhetoric of preemptive self-defense keeps getting ratcheted up nonetheless, including accusations of Iraq's Iran's noncompliance with those inspections. THIS IS A FAMILIAR TUNE, SHAKERS!
"Wolf!"—The Boy.
In good news, the New York Times is partying like it's 2003, because they've already got a year of reporting covered c/o search and replace.
There is the news that Michele Bachmann exited the presidential campaign one million dollars in debt. And the news that Rick Perry blew through $15 million in the final months of his campaign, for presumably no purpose other than raising awareness about what a douche he is so he could LOSE FASTER! This is yet another golden opportunity for USians to consider how utterly fucked up it is that we do not have publicly financed elections or limited electoral seasons, and very rich people spend enormous amounts of money to get elected while other politicians who have already been elected argue in fancy buildings about how we don't have any money to provide healthcare, food, and housing to everyone in the country.
There is the news that former Florida Governor Charlie Crist might someday run again for office as a Democrazzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Huntsman-Crist for President-VP of Napping!
There is the story about Janet Howell, a Virginia State Senator, who, to Make A Point, attached an amendment to a state mandatory ultrasound abortion bill "that would require men to have a rectal exam and a cardiac stress test before obtaining a prescription for erectile dysfunction medication." Hardy-har. Suffice it to say I don't find proposing the equivalent of a forced trans-vaginal sonogram law to be amusing, since it's little more than a sophisticated rape joke. I am, I trust it is evident, sympathetic to Howell's intentions, but I cannot get on board with fighting the nonconsensual control of the bodies of women and other people with uteri with a proposal for more of it, rather than less. Coercing a person to undergo an unnecessary vaginal probe to acquire a legal medical procedure is rape, and compelling an anal probe is no different.
There is news about ladies! The US women's soccer league's 2012 season has been cancelled less than 24 hours after the US women's national team qualified for the Olympics. If there's one thing we know how to do in America, it's treat women's sports like absolute shit!
There is the story of a man in Afghanistan, where we've been SPREADING FREEDOM for ten years and counting, who has reportedly strangled his wife after she failed to bear him a son. Three healthy daughters, though. Who now have no mother. Rage. Seethe. Boil.
There is this story about "three regulators [who] did indeed ring warning bells [about the subprime financial crisis]—at the right time, in the right places, and loud enough for other banking and financial system overseers," but were all ignored. Guess what they all have in common? Go on—guess! If you said they were all ladies, give yourself 1,000 points, redeemable at Shakesville's OMFG the Absurd Misogyny in the Year 2012 Shop!
Ladynews Trifecta!
There is, because I want to end on a hopeful note, this story about a potential breakthrough in cancer research and one patient's view of a future.
Talk about these things! Or don't. Whatever makes you happy. Life is short.
Here is all the news I don't want to write about today!
There is the BIG NEWS that Iran is totally going to attack the US! It's true! Or not! It seems like I've heard this story before: The administration of a first-term president before a hotly contested election says that US intelligence has found that
"Wolf!"—The Boy.
In good news, the New York Times is partying like it's 2003, because they've already got a year of reporting covered c/o search and replace.
There is the news that Michele Bachmann exited the presidential campaign one million dollars in debt. And the news that Rick Perry blew through $15 million in the final months of his campaign, for presumably no purpose other than raising awareness about what a douche he is so he could LOSE FASTER! This is yet another golden opportunity for USians to consider how utterly fucked up it is that we do not have publicly financed elections or limited electoral seasons, and very rich people spend enormous amounts of money to get elected while other politicians who have already been elected argue in fancy buildings about how we don't have any money to provide healthcare, food, and housing to everyone in the country.
There is the news that former Florida Governor Charlie Crist might someday run again for office as a Democrazzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Huntsman-Crist for President-VP of Napping!
There is the story about Janet Howell, a Virginia State Senator, who, to Make A Point, attached an amendment to a state mandatory ultrasound abortion bill "that would require men to have a rectal exam and a cardiac stress test before obtaining a prescription for erectile dysfunction medication." Hardy-har. Suffice it to say I don't find proposing the equivalent of a forced trans-vaginal sonogram law to be amusing, since it's little more than a sophisticated rape joke. I am, I trust it is evident, sympathetic to Howell's intentions, but I cannot get on board with fighting the nonconsensual control of the bodies of women and other people with uteri with a proposal for more of it, rather than less. Coercing a person to undergo an unnecessary vaginal probe to acquire a legal medical procedure is rape, and compelling an anal probe is no different.
There is news about ladies! The US women's soccer league's 2012 season has been cancelled less than 24 hours after the US women's national team qualified for the Olympics. If there's one thing we know how to do in America, it's treat women's sports like absolute shit!
There is the story of a man in Afghanistan, where we've been SPREADING FREEDOM for ten years and counting, who has reportedly strangled his wife after she failed to bear him a son. Three healthy daughters, though. Who now have no mother. Rage. Seethe. Boil.
There is this story about "three regulators [who] did indeed ring warning bells [about the subprime financial crisis]—at the right time, in the right places, and loud enough for other banking and financial system overseers," but were all ignored. Guess what they all have in common? Go on—guess! If you said they were all ladies, give yourself 1,000 points, redeemable at Shakesville's OMFG the Absurd Misogyny in the Year 2012 Shop!
Ladynews Trifecta!
There is, because I want to end on a hopeful note, this story about a potential breakthrough in cancer research and one patient's view of a future.
Talk about these things! Or don't. Whatever makes you happy. Life is short.
Kamis, 26 Januari 2012
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.
Selasa, 24 Januari 2012
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.
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.
Senin, 23 Januari 2012
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:
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.
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.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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Jumat, 20 Januari 2012
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.]
"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.]
I Write More Letters
Dear President Obama:
Thank you: Obama Administration Approves Rule That Guarantees Near-Universal Contraceptive Coverage.
And thank you for rejecting the expanded religious exemption, too.
Love,
Liss
Thank you: Obama Administration Approves Rule That Guarantees Near-Universal Contraceptive Coverage.
And thank you for rejecting the expanded religious exemption, too.
Love,
Liss
Kamis, 19 Januari 2012
Welcome to Your Backlash
[Content Note: This post discusses the encroachment on women's, trans men's, and genderqueer people with uteris bodily autonomy and the limitation of their reproductive rights and options, as well as the inherent violence of the anti-choice position and movement.]
Two stories arrived in my inbox in quick succession this morning:
1. Operation Rescue Launches Anti-Abortion Website: "Operation Rescue, an extremist anti-abortion group, has launched a website - abortiondocs.org - which lists the photographs and addresses of abortion providers, as well as maps to find their places of business. The website, which describes itself as the 'largest collection of documents on America's abortion cartel,' aims to list every abortion provider in the country." This is terrorism against abortionists and abortion-seeking people, or people who might ever have need of an abortion, plain and simple.
2. Long-Term Worldwide Decline in Abortions Has Stalled, and Unsafe Abortions Have Increased: "After a period of substantial decline, the global abortion rate has stalled, according to new research from the Guttmacher Institute and the World Health Organization (WHO). Between 1995 and 2003, the overall number of abortions per 1,000 women of childbearing age (15–44 years) dropped from 35 to 29; according to the new study, the global abortion rate in 2008 was virtually unchanged, at 28 per 1,000. This plateau coincides with a slowdown, documented by the United Nations, in contraceptive uptake, which has been especially marked in developing countries. The researchers also found that nearly half of all abortions worldwide are unsafe, and almost all unsafe abortions occur in the developing world."
On the one hand, these stories each deserve their own post, and I could spend the entire rest of my day writing 3,000 word pieces about each of them. On the other hand, they are part and parcel of the same issue, which is that the anti-choice position is inherently violent, whether it is forcing people with uteri who do not want to be pregnant to submit their bodies against their will to pregnancy and childbirth, or whether it is forcing people with uteri who do not want to be pregnant to seek out unsafe means of terminating a pregnancy—and there is nothing else to say but this: This is incompatible with freedom, if the word is to have any meaning at all.
This is an overtly misogynistic campaign to control the bodies of lives and women—and, by extension if not explicit design, a campaign that wants to wrestle away self-determination (and self-definition) from men and genderqueer people with uteri, too.
It is a violent backlash against the progress of feminism/womanism and gender equality. It is global, it is state-sanctioned in much of the world, and it is consigning people, mostly female people, to injury, to death, to lives they did not want.
This is not Woman's Work. The responsibility for turning this tide belongs to us all.
[See also: Misty's post. Respective hat tips to Shaker MinervaB and the Guttmacher Institute.]
Two stories arrived in my inbox in quick succession this morning:
1. Operation Rescue Launches Anti-Abortion Website: "Operation Rescue, an extremist anti-abortion group, has launched a website - abortiondocs.org - which lists the photographs and addresses of abortion providers, as well as maps to find their places of business. The website, which describes itself as the 'largest collection of documents on America's abortion cartel,' aims to list every abortion provider in the country." This is terrorism against abortionists and abortion-seeking people, or people who might ever have need of an abortion, plain and simple.
2. Long-Term Worldwide Decline in Abortions Has Stalled, and Unsafe Abortions Have Increased: "After a period of substantial decline, the global abortion rate has stalled, according to new research from the Guttmacher Institute and the World Health Organization (WHO). Between 1995 and 2003, the overall number of abortions per 1,000 women of childbearing age (15–44 years) dropped from 35 to 29; according to the new study, the global abortion rate in 2008 was virtually unchanged, at 28 per 1,000. This plateau coincides with a slowdown, documented by the United Nations, in contraceptive uptake, which has been especially marked in developing countries. The researchers also found that nearly half of all abortions worldwide are unsafe, and almost all unsafe abortions occur in the developing world."
On the one hand, these stories each deserve their own post, and I could spend the entire rest of my day writing 3,000 word pieces about each of them. On the other hand, they are part and parcel of the same issue, which is that the anti-choice position is inherently violent, whether it is forcing people with uteri who do not want to be pregnant to submit their bodies against their will to pregnancy and childbirth, or whether it is forcing people with uteri who do not want to be pregnant to seek out unsafe means of terminating a pregnancy—and there is nothing else to say but this: This is incompatible with freedom, if the word is to have any meaning at all.
This is an overtly misogynistic campaign to control the bodies of lives and women—and, by extension if not explicit design, a campaign that wants to wrestle away self-determination (and self-definition) from men and genderqueer people with uteri, too.
It is a violent backlash against the progress of feminism/womanism and gender equality. It is global, it is state-sanctioned in much of the world, and it is consigning people, mostly female people, to injury, to death, to lives they did not want.
This is not Woman's Work. The responsibility for turning this tide belongs to us all.
[See also: Misty's post. Respective hat tips to Shaker MinervaB and the Guttmacher Institute.]
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)