when the status quo frustrates.

Um…so?

Tuesday, November 11th, 2008

USAToday:

The nation’s Catholic bishops are expected to issue a statement Wednesday pledging cooperation with president-elect Barack Obama on numerous social issues but vowing all-out opposition to any law or executive order he may sign advocating abortion rights.

Did I miss the part where America became a theocracy? Specifically a Catholic theocracy? oh, it isn’t? so, we’re supposed to care about this because..?

To Auxiliary Bishop of Chicago Thomas Paprocki, that would precipitate a cascade of disasters: It would “nullify all conscience laws” allowing doctors, nurses and others to object to abortion, and would require abortions to be performed by all hospitals — which could lead to ending obstetrics services in all Catholic hospitals, even to closing the hospitals entirely.

“Any one of us here would consider it a privilege to die tomorrow — die tomorrow! — to bring about the end of abortion,” said Auxiliary Bishop Robert Hermann of St. Louis.

No, nooo! Don’t throw us into that briar patch, Brer Fox! …er, I mean, “Yeah, don’t do that! We couldn’t stand it if any of those things happened!”

Live From Glenn Sacks’s Blog: Biological vs. Legal Fatherhood

Friday, November 7th, 2008

Here’s the link! Feel free to post comments here; feminist-friendly moderation of this thread is in effect.

Mmm, Babies! They Stay Crunchy in Milk.

Thursday, October 23rd, 2008

I like babies. They’re cute. I have about 50,000 pictures of my sons as babies and with the slightest encouragement, especially after a glass of wine or two, I will happily haul them out of the closet and make you admire each and every one of them.

However, I am pro-choice. I say “however” because clearly, there is a fair contingent of people out there who genuinely believe that people who are pro-choice don’t give a rat’s ass about babies. Sometimes, they even seem to believe that what pro-choice people really, secretly want to do is rend and splatter as many babies as possible limb from limb, and the only reason women are out there still getting abortions is because they just don’t realize that that’s what abortion is really all about. For example:

Oklahoma’s new [abortion] statute dictates that either the doctor performing the abortion or a “certified technician working in conjunction” with that doctor do the ultrasound, “provide a simultaneous explanation of what the ultrasound is depicting,” and also “display the ultrasound images so that the pregnant woman may view them.” The law goes so far as to specify the doctor’s script: The physician must describe the heartbeat and the presence of internal organs, fingers, and toes.

Widdle fingers and toesies! (ahem) I repeat, WIDDLE FINGERS AND TOESIES!!!!! To be smashed, crushed, torn, shredded into bloody BITS!!!!

Next up! Addendum to the statute: “Doctor (or a certified technician working in conjuction with doctor) must describe embryo’s desperate screams of ‘No, Mommy! Noooo! Don’t let them rip me apart, Mommy! I love you!’”

(Sigh.)

Usually, I’ve tried to shoot for compassion in my dealings with the pro-life mentality. As I said, I like babies and I think they’re cute. However, I’ve noticed that with the passage of years, my patience has shrunken gradually down to, well. The size of an eight-week old embryo. This big: ——-.

I’ve gone into great detail about my abortion stance and my feelings about the pro-life stance on more than one occasion already; I won’t rehash them yet again. I believe, though, that I am officially “done” with attempting to extend any sort of respect at all towards those who self-identify as “pro-life.” Seriously, why should I extend respect to people that have codified it into law that they have not only no respect, but anti-respect for those who self-identify as “pro-choice?” That does not mean that I will cease to extend respect towards those who personally would choose to never have an abortion; that is an eminently respectable position. It definitely doesn’t mean I will cease to extend compassion to any woman who was pressured into or otherwise regrets her abortion; that is a personal, not political, matter. However, anyone who affiliates himself or herself with any group of persons seeking to pass legislation that restricts, in any way, the right of women to choose..? I consider you fair game the minute you open your mouth (or heat up your keyboard) to say so. Be warned.

Kicking punkass and taking names

Friday, September 12th, 2008

By the way, if you haven’t watched any of Amanda and Marc’s new series, RH Reality Check, please do so now. They’re really great. I am so proud.

(They’re on YouTube, too, for any who might have trouble with Vimeo.)

Normally, Our Glorious Founder Punkass Marc does his magic behind the camera, but he makes a cameo in this particular episode:


RH Reality Check: Abstinence-Only Vs. Comprehensive Sex Education from RH Reality Check on Vimeo.

Rarely have I read an article where a reporter from a national mainstream magazine was so blatantly creaming in his jeans over the awesomeness that is teen parenthood.

Monday, September 1st, 2008

This was hard to believe. I had to check twice to make sure it was really Time magazine and not some clever decoy, you know, like “crisis pregnancy” centers like to pull when they set up facilities next to a Planned Parenthood clinic and call themselves something like “The Planning for Parenthood Center” to fake legitimacy and trick people who are looking for actual reproductive health care into their clutches. But no, it is Time magazine, and the guy who is writing the article is named Nathan Thornburgh. Actually, I was so underwhelmed by this article that I decided to do a quick search on this guy’s name to see what else he might’ve written out there, and apparently, this is but a second of a series of articles he has produced about visiting Alaska in the light of the Palin veep announcement. The other one, entitled “Where Palin Made Her Name,” opens with the following gem:

It’s Friday night, and there have got to be 500 people packed into the Sluice Box, a beer-soaked clapboard honky-tonk at the Alaska State Fair – the state’s biggest event all year – just down the highway from Governor Sarah Palin’s hometown of Wasilla. The legendary Hobo Jim, Alaska’s official state balladeer, the guy who has opened sessions of the legislature with a song, is onstage, working blue.

“Here’s to the girl from the great Northwest,” he sings, “with tits as hard as a hornet’s nest.” The crowd whistles its approval.

For the record, he’s not singing about Palin, though the curvature and comeliness of McCain’s surprise vice-presidential nominee pick are brought up by just about everyone here, man and woman, in a way that would make lower-48 liberals and feminists cringe.

Mmm…you know, there are certain things that people who don’t like a certain other set of people say that are red flags cluing one in on the fact that that person, indeed, does not like them. The above is a great example of that. It’s interesting that some journalists appear to believe that the spirit of the supposed ideal of journalistic neutrality is fulfilled by passive-aggression–frankly, I’d prefer that they just openly said fuck the whole ideal! and engaged in outright aggression. It’d leave less of a greasy aftertaste.

At any rate, it’s a strange article. He begins by stating that he thinks that Sarah Palin’s underaged daughter’s pregnancy is nobody’s business but her and her family’s, which makes the fact that he’s writing an article about said pregnancy in a nationally popular magazine rather odd. Would he like us better if we quit reading his article right then in solidarity? He then goes on to describe how they’re all real men in Alaska–hunting is apparently not something they do in any of those other 48 states, you know, the ones occupied by liberals and feminists, and Alaska also has people who’ve lost family members to industrial accidents and that go serve in Iraq, which again sets them quite apart from the 48 Contiguous Pussy States where that shit apparently hardly ever even comes up. The naturally flowing conclusion that he draws from all this is so that really, it is SO not a big deal to be an underaged mother. (You can almost hear him shout Isn’t this REFRESHING, readers??)

Yep, it gets even more unreal than that–don’t believe me? Here ya go:

The fact is, regardless of what you will hear over the next few days, Bristol [Palin]‘s pregnancy is not a legitimate political issue. Sarah Palin is a longterm member of a group called Feminists for Life, which is not opposed to birth control. So you probably can’t tag her for consigning young people to unwanted pregnancies.

Oh, my. You most certainly can, including that of her own daughter, unless you’re trying to stretch reality even further and claim that Bristol Palin is having a planned pregnancy. Let’s see, for instance, what Feminists for Life actually does have to say about contraception:

What is Feminists for Life’s position on contraception?
Feminists for Life’s mission is to address the unmet needs of women who are pregnant or parenting. Preconception issues including abstinence and contraception are outside of our mission.

Erm, but they DO have a stated position on, for instance, assisted suicide, which seems to be a leetle further afield from the topic of pregnancy than contraception is…come on, what’s the REAL reason—?

Some FFL members and supporters support the use of non-abortifacient contraception while others oppose contraception for a variety of reasons

Translated: not all of us have multiple kids, making indelicate questions about our contraceptive status unavoidable if we were to outright oppose it.

FFL is concerned that certain forms of contraception have had adverse health effects on women.

Translated: But if we can find a health link, no matter how dubious, we’re primed and ready to jump on that bandwagon at the slightest moment’s notice!!

But how about Sarah Palin herself?

Q. Will you support the right of parents to opt out their children from curricula, books, classes, or surveys, which parents consider privacy-invading or offensive to their religion or conscience?

Sarah Palin: Yes. Parents should have the ultimate control over what their children are taught.

Q. Will you support funding for abstinence-until-marriage education instead of for explicit sex-education programs, school-based clinics, and the distribution of contraceptives in schools?

Sarah Palin: Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support.

You know, sometimes it is useful to actually get to see, so CLEARLY illustrated, where the fervent support of the above positions lands the daughters of those who practice said preachery. No theories or opinions here, folks! Real-life consequences of real-life philosophies.

And after all this, here is the conclusion that Nathan Thornburgh says he’s come to:

As for the idea — sure to be floated—that the avowedly anti-abortion Palin may have pressured her poor daughter to ruin her life by carrying an unwanted baby to term, I wouldn’t bet on it.

Is my favorite part of the above sentence the pooh-poohing of the idea that having a baby at age 17 might be quite life-altering in a negative way or that any girl forced to do so is a sarcastically pooor weeeetle thaaaaang, or is it that he thinks that it’s even possible that Bristol Palin was presented with all her choices in a rational and unbiased fashion?

(sigh) I’ll let you know when I figure that out…

The Fetusmobiles are here again.

Tuesday, August 26th, 2008

The DNC seems to be bringing out all the protesters. Including the protesters who feel that both the number of (1) women killed by a lack of access to reproductive healthcare, and (2) the number of car accidents stemming from drivers being distracted by giant fetuses, are far below what we, as a nation, could achieve.

(Disturbing fetus picture below the cut.)

(more…)

Sign the petition, comment on the register…let’s deluge those fuckers!

Friday, August 22nd, 2008

In my inbox today:

Dear Lisa,

You have joined us in standing up for women’s health in the past, so I wanted to give you an update on the latest news. Yesterday afternoon, the Department of Health and Human Services issued the latest version of their health care regulations. The latest draft proves once again the Bush administration is jeopardizing women’s health by putting their ideology first.

Senator Clinton and her colleague Senator Patty Murray are working hard on this issue. Together they are fighting on behalf of women everywhere to make sure this attempt does not go unnoticed. Make no mistake — the Bush Administration is threatening access to family planning options for women who need them most.

That is why it is so important that we continue our fight. We still need your help as we continue to oppose these attempts to undermine women’s health care. If you have not yet signed the petition, I hope you will today, or please send this to your friends and ask them to join us.

Click here to sign the petition

We have already seen the difference your support can make. These new regulations do not include some of the most objectionable language from the earlier draft. I believe that is because so many of you have joined Senator Clinton in speaking out, and I want to thank you for helping with this effort.

But we are not done yet.

The newest version continues to be a problem. Instead of increasing women’s access to health care, these regulations would further complicate the process, adding additional barriers to women’s ability to get quality care.

Now that these regulations have been published in the Federal Register, the public has 30 days to comment (email address is consciencecomment@hhs.gov). It is so important that we continue to speak up and make clear that we oppose any last-minute Bush administration attempts to undermine women’s health!

Please ask your friends to join us by signing here, so that we can send all your signatures and comments to HHS.

Thank you,

Ann F. Lewis

Ann Lewis, Director of Communications for HILLPAC and Friends of Hillary, served in the White House from 1997 2000 as Director of Communications and then Counselor to President Bill Clinton. She was Director of Communications and Deputy Campaign Manager for the Clinton-Gore Re-Election Campaign in 1995- 1996, and Senior Advisor to the campaign of Hillary Rodham Clinton for U.S. Senate in 2000. As the National Chair of the DNC Women’s Vote Center, she led the Democratic Party’s major initiative to reach, engage, and mobilize women voters from 2002- 2004.

Let’s Talk About Abortion

Thursday, August 14th, 2008

Maybe it’s because it’s an election year, but I’ve been feeling outright pounded by abortion news lately. To wit:

WSJ:

The American Psychological Association said Wednesday there is “no credible evidence” that a single, elective abortion causes mental-health problems for adult women.

The report, which came after a two-year review of published research, was anticipated by both supporters and opponents of legal abortion.

Women’s psychological reaction to the procedure has become a key issue in the abortion debate, with some judges and lawmakers citing mental-health concerns as reason to impose restrictions on abortion.

and:

Two years after a strict abortion ban [in South Dakota] was overturned by voters, backers have brought a similar measure — but one laced with complexities that could bode well for its passage, and ultimately could bring about the challenge to Roe v. Wade desired by abortion foes nationwide.

ABC News:

The Democratic Party is planning a convention designed to soften the edges on the party’s support for abortion rights, with a revamped platform and a speaking lineup that reinforces efforts to broaden Democrats’ appeal on the hot-button issue.

In a statement fraught with symbolism for those on both sides of the abortion debate, Sen. Bob Casey Jr., D-Pa., an abortion-rights opponent, will be given a prime speaking slot at the Democratic National Convention in Denver later this month.

WaPo:

Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt has denied that a controversial draft regulation would redefine common birth control methods as abortion and protect the rights of doctors and other health-care workers who refuse to provide them.

According to the language in a draft of the regulation that leaked last month, the rule would apply to anyone who participates in “any activity with a logical connection to a procedure, health service or health service program, or research activity. . . . This includes referral, training and other arrangements of the procedure, health service, or research activity.”

One section of the draft regulation defines abortion as “any of the various procedures — including the prescription, dispensing and administration of any drug or the performance of any procedure or any other action — that results in the termination of life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation.”

US News & World Report:

John McCain yesterday said he would not rule out picking a pro-choice running mate, a move seen as a boost for former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge, who joined the presumptive GOP nominee for two days of campaign events in his home state.

The Guardian:

In Colorado voters are being asked whether human “personhood” begins at conception. If passed, that measure would make Colorado the first state to outlaw abortion outright since the Roe court ruling.

The Colorado ban has secured endorsements from “over 70″ anti-abortion physicians, according to its backers. But in the state’s closely fought Senate race, both Democratic candidate Mark Udall and self-described “pro-life” Republican Bob Schaffer are opposing the ban.

“I think there are other strategies and tactics that get us far closer to advancing the cause of human life,” Schaffer told a local Colorado radio station this month.

(more…)

“The proof in the pudding”

Monday, July 14th, 2008

Everybody is allowed to change their opinions over time. Even politicians. But many of Obama’s progressive apologists make the claim that we shouldn’t be so bothered by all of the rightward-leaning things Obama says, because he’s REALLY a lefty– he’s just playing the game the way that anyone would have to in order to win. Really, the argument goes, if we want to get a sense for the “real” Obama, we should look at what he was like before he decided to run for president.

Well alrighty then. Freedom Rider has dug up an intriguing statement that Obama made in 2001, giving his opinion about of the kinds of nominees that Bush was submitting for various high positions. (Because I was too lazy to take them out, all emphases are hers.)

‘The proof in the pudding is looking at the treatment of the other Bush nominees,’ Obama said. ‘I mean for the most part, I for example do not agree with a missile defense system, but I don’t think that soon-to-be-Secretary Rumsfeld is in any way out of the mainstream of American political life. And I would argue that the same would be true for the vast majority of the Bush nominees, and I give him credit for that.’

‘So I don’t want to be pegged as being far left simply because I find certain aspects in John Ashcroft’s record to be divisive or offensive,’ Obama continued. ‘I think it’s legitimate for me to raise that. As I said before, if he brought before us a nominee who didn’t agree with me on affirmative action and yet said that, you know, I do think that and showed a history for showing regard and concern for racial justice, if he came before us and said I oppose a woman’s right to choose, or I oppose abortion, I find it religiously offensive, and yet I do respect, for example, the notion that we shouldn’t be solving these things with violence, historically, if that had been what was said, then I don’t think I would object. And I think that’s a fair position to take.’

Now granted, this was in the context of a statement which was meant to be critical of John Ashcroft– but don’t you righties worry, at least he did love him some Rummy.

This is not just Obama being a uniter-not-a-divider. First he says he’s willing to give up fighting on affirmative action as long as his opponents say “some of my best friends are black”. Then he says he’s willing to give up fighting on abortion as long as the opponents give lip service to being against shooting abortion doctors.

Then, just as now, Obama was willing to sell out both black people and women, just to fully ensure that nobody can commit the cardinal sin of mistaking him for somebody on the left. It just looks like he’s moving center now only because he was always center to begin with– he just had a reason to hide it back when he wasn’t the only remaining Democratic candidate.

And remember, folks, “moving center” is really just code for “moving right”.

Things That Make Me Go “Hmm.”

Tuesday, July 8th, 2008

Coming on the heels of the brouhaha over Obama’s recent remarks about late-term abortion, I found it very interesting that the Planned Parenthood Action Fund just today announced, in a very ringing and go-team-gooo! press release, that they are endorsing Obama’s candidacy. The news outlets and blogs picking it up are also excitedly pointing out, as the press release states, that this marks only the second time in Planned Parenthood’s history that the Action Fund has made an endorsement in a presidential campaign(!). The significance of that statement, I admit, escapes me to the point where I begin to suspect that they are being a little misleading here on purpose–there have only been four Democratic presidential candidates since the Action Fund came into being in 1989, which means that they have endorsed…well…half of ‘em.

At present I can only speculate as to their motives, and since I have no evidence pointing me in any particular direction, I will keep said speculation to myself til some kind of corroborating facts present themselves one way or another.

Watching the Angst With Bemusement

Sunday, July 6th, 2008

On one level, it isn’t really hard to understand, though it does require that one accepts the truism that people tend to believe what they want to believe, rather than genuinely evaluating a given situation into which they have poured a lot of emotional investment from a logical and dispassionate standpoint. It’s not like I can claim I’ve nevereverEVER done the same–I’ve been divorced twice, after all, which certainly points to at least a few pretty significant misjudgments on my part in terms of how I perceived another person relating to things that were really important to me. But on another level, it is hard for me to understand folks doing this outside of the realm of the most intimate personal relationships–parents, best friends, lovers, sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, and so forth. But people do do it all the time outside those situations–they somehow develop an emotional relationship with, for instance, actors–or church leaders–or professional athletes–there’s an absolutely fascinating dynamic involving porn stars that I may specifically write about someday–or, in this case, politicians. They appear to believe that there is some kind of connection there; though they do understand that this relationship is of course utterly one-sided in the concrete sense since the person in question has usually never laid eyes upon them nor even heard of them, they still somehow believe that on some level, somehow, this person cares at least about the idea of them–people like them. This is apparently enough to allow them to develop a full-blown fantasy rig involving what this person is really like! what a great friend this person would be if they had a friendship with them, how just generally awesome this person really is. In short, something very like love, and with it, all the attendant blindness that people tend to exhibit towards a genuinely loved one.

The current angst is based upon the following interview excerpt with Senator Barack Obama, Democratic presidential nominee, with some Christian online magazine called Relevant*:

Strang: Based on emails we received, another issue of deep importance to our readers is a candidate’s stance on abortion. We largely know your platform, but there seems to be some real confusion about your position on third-trimester and partial-birth abortions. Can you clarify your stance for us?

Obama: I absolutely can, so please don’t believe the emails. I have repeatedly said that I think it’s entirely appropriate for states to restrict or even prohibit late-term abortions as long as there is a strict, well-defined exception for the health of the mother. Now, I don’t think that “mental distress” qualifies as the health of the mother. I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying that child to term. Otherwise, as long as there is such a medical exception in place, I think we can prohibit late-term abortions.

Here are some examples of the previously referenced angst:

This is an upsetting bit of pandering–

I want to give you the benefit of the doubt, Barack–

Aw, Barry, say it ain’t so–

Some even go so far as to attempt to repaint his comments as something positive:

Explaining Obama, defining abortion terms

It reminds me a lot of a spouse, a few months after the wedding’s taken place, suddenly being forced to notice that the Sig. O’s arrival time home from work is really getting kinda late and when did your occasional trips to the gym become every other day and–unhappy feelings of suspicion, grimly suppressed by some (“I’m sure it doesn’t REALLY mean anything!”) but now requiring a conscious effort to do so, ranging to scale to “Oh, well, probably’s trying to be more attractive to ME!” and the work hours? “Probably wants to make up more money to do something special for US!”

Barack Obama is not all about women. Rinse, repeat. He never was. Isn’t now. Probably won’t ever be. He has never had to be. He has enjoyed the support of women who have made a point to specify that their feminism is not actually all about women (radical notion, I know!), and numerically speaking, that is enough combined with his legions of male supporters to make him the front-runner.

Barack Obama has never even tried to pretend he was all about women. He habitually refers to professional women in professional interactions as “sweetie,” which is something most of my male bosses in my often overwhelmingly male work environment have a made a point of not doing. He not only had the fewest number of female staffers on his campaign, he paid them less than the men. What has his position on abortion always been? That it should be a decision that the individual woman needs lots of outside input to make, and chided pro-choicers for their lack of pontification about how morally bad abortion really is. His response to all the women who supported Hillary Clinton? “If women take a moment to realise that on every issue important to women, John McCain is not in their corner, that would help them get over it.”

You know, that last part is very true. When the only choices are Obama and McCain, it is quite, quite clear who women and men who care deeply about women’s issues must vote for. I’m certainly voting for Obama and doing my best to encourage anyone I can reach to do so.

But I never played footsie with myself about Barack Obama the “feminist.” It saddens me that so many people apparently did–I thought they were supporting Obama in spite of his lukewarm nature towards the principles and ideals of feminism–actual feminism, you know, the belief in striving specifically for gender equality in all walks of life, social, economic, etc.

Maybe they were confused by the fact that he has an outspoken wife?

Well, as I said above, Obama has no reason to shift gears now–frankly, every reason to become more and more blatant about his real views on the subject. It’ll be interesting to watch the disillusioned and the apologist as the campaign continues on and even more so once the actual Obama presidency gets rolling, I guess. As long as we all keep hard to our intentions to vote Obama ’08 to get him there.

*via Shakesville.

Taking the Taste of the Schlaf’s Honorary Degree Out of My Mouth

Wednesday, July 2nd, 2008

If only it’d been in the States. I’m so jealous of Canada right now. (via Amanda.)

Morgentaler among those named to Order of Canada

Gov. Gen. Michaëlle Jean has named a leading abortion rights crusader to the Order of Canada, news that has outraged anti-abortion groups.

Dr. Henry Morgentaler is one of 75 Canadians to receive honours for their contribution to the country. The Governor General announced the new inductees on Tuesday after the names were recommended by an advisory panel.

Now 85, Morgentaler, a Polish Holocaust survivor who immigrated to Montreal after the war, opened his first abortion clinic in 1969 and performed thousands of procedures, which were illegal at the time.

Morgentaler, a trained family physician, argued that access to abortion was a basic human right and women should not have to risk death at the hands of an untrained professional in order to end their pregnancies.

Morgentaler’s clinics were constantly raided, and one in Toronto was firebombed. Morgentaler was arrested several times and spent months in jail as he fought his case at all court levels in Canada.

His victory came on Jan. 28, 1988, when the Supreme Court of Canada struck down Canada’s abortion law. That law, which required a woman who wanted an abortion to appeal to a three-doctor hospital abortion committee, was declared unconstitutional.

So awesome.

In another controversial decision, the University of Western Ontario three years ago conferred an honorary Doctor of Laws degree upon Morgentaler, his first honorary degree, sparking campus protests.

Melissa Haussman, author of Abortion Politics in North America and a University of Carleton political science professor, told CTV that it was “fitting and right he should be honoured.”

“I can think of no one who has worked harder on behalf of women’s reproductive choice and women’s reproductive rights than Dr. Henry Morgentaler since the … late 1960s,” she said.

Take that, Washington University.