Happy Anniversary, Roe v. Wade!

On the 37th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, I want to remind everyone that there's a reason we pro-choicers use the word "choice." And that reason is what (I hope) we're fighting for.

It's not about abortion. It was never about abortion. Find me someone who actually LIKES abortion. We're not for more abortions, we're for freedom. For trust. For choice. For autonomy.

The moment abortion becomes illegal, that freedom, that choice has been taken away. The nation is effectively saying, "Women shouldn't be trusted to make this decision for themselves."

When pro-lifers frame the argument around the potential for life, they de-rail the focus. We're not automatically on opposite sides of the argument, because they're arguing apples and I'm arguing squares. It's not an either-or argument. It's this-and-that. And this is why we all end up nowhere. Pretty soon, the argument becomes about pinpointing where life begins, and we're in a hamster wheel of cyclical arguments where no one trusts anyone with any decision and both abortion and masturbation end up illegal.

I'm firmly pro-masturbation, for the record.

But back to my point. Pro-choice is not pro-abortion. If you're pro-choice, you're most likely for any method that WORKS (I'm looking at you, abstinence-only education) to decrease the number of abortions. Like almost everything else in this world, it starts with education, continues with availability of resources to enable women and men to make smart decisions, and ends (in my dream world, anyway) with a world full of WANTED children and happy people, both pregnant and non-pregnant.

For this world to become a reality, abortion needs to exist. It needs to be accessible and safe, because accidents happen. Stupid decisions happen. And that's what makes abortion a necessity.

I've met people who can't quite bring themselves to accept the "pro-choice" label. I get it. Labels suck. But sometimes, like abortion, they're necessary. We're in a fight, and we need you. You may be morally opposed to abortion for yourself, but if you believe people should maintain control over their bodies, you're on this side of the line, I'm afraid. Come join the picket line.

Ding, dong the global gag rule is DEAD!

Some were pissed that Obama didn't lift the global gag rule (which denies funding to any NGO that gives abortions or abortion counseling) yesterday, on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade.

Instead, he did it today. Yesterday, he said the issue was too emotional to make the decision on such a symbolic day. So...one day makes such a difference? I think he just wanted to stand out from the crowd (both Clinton and Bush addressed the rule on January 22nd).

Plus, there's this:

His choice to lift the gag today rather than yesterday, the anniversary of Roe v. Wade decision and the date that both Clinton and Bush made their announcements, is being read as a sign of respect toward antiabortion activists, who staged a large march in D.C. yesterday. That may be true, but it's also true that by making more pro-choice news today, after issuing a very strong statement in support of Roe yesterday, Obama is ensuring that his lift of the gag rule -- which really does change the landscape for international health and family services -- can stand as its own news story, rather than just getting mashed in with the rest of the January 22 "abortion day" news.

You know what? I don't care why he did it today. I'm just ecstatic that he did it. More access and funding for contraceptives, counseling, and education means fewer unintended pregnancies and fewer abortions. And that's what we all want...right? RIGHT?

Moving the abortion conversation

Lately, I've noticed a lot of Democrats slipping out of the abortion question. They steer the conversation to "unwanted pregnancy."

I believe that's because the pro-life camp is really good at what they do. They successfully labeled us pro-choicers as pro-abortion. Lots of abortions for everyone! We love abortions!

No one likes abortions. But pro-choice people think women should have the option NOT to deal with the product of a rape...NOT to raise a child they don't want...NOT to carry a child they aren't ready for.

I'm glad Bristol Palin had that choice. I'm assuming Sarah Palin isn't lying about Bristol's "decision." Big assumption...I know.

But I wish she had that choice. I DON'T wish she had an abortion. I just wish she could have had one...if she wanted it.

But back to the "unwanted pregnancy" point. Democrats are trying to bring the conversation back to its essence. Here's Barack Obama on This Week, trying to reframe his abortion answer at Saddleback:

“What I do know is that abortion is a moral issue, that it's one that families struggle with all the time. And that in wrestling with those issues, I don't think that the government criminalizing the choices that families make is the best answer for reducing abortions.

“I think the better answer — and this was reflected in the Democratic platform — is to figure out, how do we make sure the young mothers, or women who have a pregnancy that's unexpected or difficult, have the kind of support they need to make a whole range of choices, including adoption and keeping the child.

We're talking about the best way to reduce abortions now. And I don't think that's a bad thing. Would Bristol Palin have gotten pregnant if she had better sex education? The plague of teen pregnancy isn't the "Juno effect," and it isn't a fad, it's a startling example of what happens when kids don't know how to have safe sex. So are the troubling new AIDS stats. I hope this is all the proof we need that abstinence-only education is a crock.

I'm okay with the new conversation. It's about safe sex, and keeping options open when condoms break, birth control fails, or women can't get emergency contraception when they need it. It's not about your religion, it's about my freedom. It's not about killing "babies," it's about making sure every child in this world is wanted and cared for. Sounds good to me.

Samantha Bee for VP?

Sorry to do another Daily Show embed, but I couldn't resist...

What's wrong with McCain's Palin choice

1. It undercuts his "no experience" argument against Obama.

2. Liberal and conservative mothers (ex. my mother) will have a problem with a woman with 5 kids (including a 5 month old baby with Down Syndrome who she's still nursing) heading into 2nd-in-line situation with a 72-year-old man. In other words, soccer moms aren't quite sure about this "hockey mom."

3. Sure, he gets evangelicals on board, but people who (for some reason) thought McCain was winking when he said he'd be "a pro-life president" are not so sure it's a joke anymore. He's losing the center.

4. As Kim Gandy said, "Not every woman supports women's rights." Palin belongs to Feminists for Life, an organization that believes "women deserve better than abortion." She believes abortions should be illegal, even for rape and incest victims. She also tried to hire a guy who had been reprimanded for sexual harassment. McCain's choice is offensive to many feminists and Hillary supporters who were actually thinking of giving their vote to McCain (as NUTS as that is).

5. Completely surface and cosmetic: her voice is grating. If she keeps speaking like that, she's going to lose her voice fast. I know it's silly, but that stuff gets to me, whether it's a man OR a woman speaking.

Yes, it's great that there's a woman on one of the tickets, it's just the completely WRONG woman. She just rounds out the McCain ticket and makes the choice easier for centrists everywhere.

Sure, McCain stole Obama's news cycle yesterday, but that's because the media was picking Palin apart. Biden has plenty to pick at, but it's already been done. This woman hasn't been vetted on a national scale yet...and the media only has 2 months to do it. In my opinion? This thing is going to crash and burn.

Creepy?

Via Gossip Boulevard:

This is either the story of very level-headed adults making good decisions or it's really really creepy.

Jamie Lynn Spears, the "oh my god, she's pregnant?" of the year, is handing her baby over to her mom. You know, the one with two daughters in the middle of crises?

No, no, I don't blame the mother, but I will blame her if she's forcing Jamie Lynn Spears to do something she doesn't want to do.

It starts to get creepy towards the end:

“She wants Jamie Lynn to continue her show business career after the baby is born and Jamie Lynn also realizes she wants to enjoy her teenage years without the responsibilities of caring for a baby. Lynne is convinced that having a baby on her hip will not help Jamie Lynn’s future in the business and she’s expecting her daughter to pick up where she left off as soon as the baby is born.”

Sure, she'll just pick back up as the star of a kids' tv show. No weird issues there. And, I know this is the year of skirting around "schmaschmortion," but wouldn't that have been better for everyone in this case?

Okay, whatever, no abortion. Let's have some more creep:

"Jamie Lynn’s managers also agree and have advised Lynne (Spears, the mom) that the best thing to do is have Jamie photographed with the baby as soon as it is born, sell the pictures and then take over raising her own grandchild.

Well yeah, the managers have to make money somehow after all that "vacation" time Spears is getting...

“Lynne is completely on board with the plan. “She always wanted Britney to raise her babies in Louisiana. She couldn’t have that but now she’s going to raise Jamie Lynn’s baby at her home in Kentwood. Jamie Lynn will be back at work and trying to remind people of her talent and not that she is an unwed teenage mother.”

Two points there: first, I hear the rumblings of a completely overbearing mother. Second, "remind people of her talent"? Yikes. And, I'm afraid to say, this isn't going to be an easy one to shake.

On the plus side, she's a celebrity, so she's not being shunned by the community in Kentwood:

Kentwood local Pam Wright said: “How many 16 year-old girls get pregnant every week? It doesn’t mean that she’s a bad person. I don’t think this will end her career, life will go on.”

Blogging for Choice

Happy Birthday, Roe v. Wade!

On the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, let's look at where we are.

People continue to try to strip away abortion rights by getting around Roe v. Wade. The decision was based on a Right to Privacy, a right that isn't constitutional, but is based on the 14th amendment, which guarantees a right to due process.

The court recognized a state's interest in the protection of fetuses (or, as I like to call them, fetusi).

In other words, Roe v. Wade is an unsteady basis for our right to choose.

If pro-life activists get their way, they would pass amendments stating that a fetus is a person. This would effectively counteract Roe v. Wade.

Men are now arguing that they should have a say when it comes to abortion. These pro-lifers are creative, I'll give them that.

Certain presidential candidates *cough* (Fuckabee) are towing the new pro-life line that doctors are to blame. We should protect our poor, stupid women from getting abortions. They don't know what they're doing.

If said candidates get elected, we'll have to speak through our votes. If you believe a woman should have power over her own life, is responsible to herself before the state, is of sound mind to make her own decisions, please, vote pro-choice.

To me, voting pro-choice means not only voting against all the efforts to strip away our rights, it means voting for candidates who will provide more access to sex education (to keep abortion rates low), voting for access to contraceptives, voting against all the little seemingly innocuous, bills that give the government, state, husband, father, sister, brother, mother, cousin the right to decide what's best for you.

Come November, a lot of people will be out there voting pro-life. Let's show them we're not going backwards.

Wait, maybe I should make it "cool" for the "young people."

Hey, dudes! Do you want to have ask your dad for an abortion even if he's the one who raped you? Do you want to be forced to have a baby when you're twelve? Do you want to pay a lot of money to have a coat hangar shoved into your vagina? That's right! No fuckin' way!

Get out there and Vote for your Vag!

I don't think that worked. Eh, it was worth a try.

"Roe"bration

Tuesday, January 22nd is the anniversary of the historic (if flawed) court case Roe v. Wade. And it's time for some celebration! We should party now while we still have some rights left.

Feministing has a great list of stuff going on to commemorate the occasion. Check it out.

They left out an event my cousin is going to (in Seattle). NARAL Pro-Choice is hosting Chocolate for Choice, a chocolate crawl benefit. Though it's playing into stereotypes a bit, fuck it, chocolate is as good an enticement as any to get people to contribute money for choice.

I'm going to try to get to Politics Uncorked on the 29th and the Feministing party on the 31st (both in NY). Anyone want to join me?

Let's not move backwards

This BBC News story reports that abortion clinics in Spain are on strike. Doctors are trying to change a law allowing abortions only to women for whom the pregnancy poses a risk to their mental health. More restrictions are placed on rape victims and women with malformed fetuses(!)

Dr Roland Ledea, who runs a private abortion clinic in Madrid, told that BBC that "we are now in 2008 and the law was made in 1985 - society has changed a lot".

"I think abortion should be free, depending on the woman that is pregnant, nothing else."

Those Roman Catholics, they do things right. Best of luck to the strikers.

Abortion is the Darfur of America...no wait...it's slavery

The San Francisco Chronicle has this gem. Here are some choice quotes:

"The abortion issue is huge. It is the Darfur of America," and it's time to educate the public about it, said Walter Hoye, a Berkeley preacher who founded the Issues4Life Foundation, a recently formed Union City-based organization intent on drafting more African Americans into the fight against abortion...

He compares abortion to slavery and says the fetus has a right to be protected by the Constitution.

"It is not the first time a segment of the community has had their rights denied," Childress said. "It is a civil rights issue because it is dehumanizing and not giving proper status as a citizen. Most people on the opposite side think it is not a person, just like they did during slavery. It is not the first time this country has done us wrong."

There are, of course, other voices of sanity out there (via the same article):

The Rev. Amos Brown, president of the San Francisco branch of the NAACP, said that abortion is not a civil rights issue and that he has no plans to take part in the events.

"San Francisco's top civil rights issues are education, economic empowerment and political engagement," Brown said. "African American students are behind every ethnic group in this city academically. People who are learned and informed do the right thing. If not, they engage in destructive behavior.

"These pro-life people are demagogues and ideologues and are not receiving overwhelming support from the black community."

I don't think I need to say who's side I'm on. This Hoye guy is fucking ridiculous. The guy is nuts.

The Royal "We"

I know this isn't new, but it's still really disturbing.

An LA Times article reports on male anti-abortion activists.

Their new tactic is apparently using the pronoun "we." We had an abortion. I hate it when "we're pregnant" I hate it when "we have abortions." It's got nothing to do with "we."

Sure, "we're having a baby" works. We're in debt. We're having sex. Because those all involve both people. In a perfect world, men and women would be involved in what happens to their progeny, but it's not a perfect world. Bottom line: women will be more affected by a baby. No matter how you slice it. It's a woman's body, she gets final say.

But the reason to read the article is the men they found to interview:

Morrow, the counselor, described his regret as sneaking up on him in midlife -- more than a decade after he impregnated three girlfriends (one of them twice) in quick succession in the late 1980s. All four pregnancies ended in abortion.

Years later, when his wife told him she was pregnant, "I suddenly realized that I had four dead children," said Morrow, 47, who lives near Erie, Pa. "I hadn't given it a thought. Now it all came crashing down on me -- look what you've done."

Does this guy not believe in condoms? What's the deal? "Hadn't given it a thought"?

But here's the really funny/sad one:

Chris Aubert, a Houston lawyer, felt only indifference in 1985 when a girlfriend told him she was pregnant and planned on an abortion. When she asked if he wanted to come to the clinic, he said he couldn't; he played softball on Saturdays. He stuck a check for $200 in her door and never talked to her again.

Aubert, 50, was equally untroubled when another girlfriend had an abortion in 1991. "It was a complete irrelevancy," he said. But years later, Aubert felt a rising sense of unease. He and his wife were cooing at an ultrasound of their first baby when it struck him -- "from the depths of my belly," he said -- that abortion was wrong...

Aubert wonders: What if his first girlfriend had not aborted? How would his life look different?

He might have endured a loveless marriage and, perhaps, a sad divorce. He might have been saddled with child support as he tried to build his legal practice. He might never have met his wife. Their children -- Christine, Kyle, Roch, Paul, Vance -- might not exist.

"I wouldn't have the blessings I have now," Aubert said. So in a way, he said, the two abortions may have cleared his path to future happiness.

"That's an intellectual debate I have with myself," he said. "I struggle with it."

In the end, Aubert says his moral objection to abortion always wins. If he could go back in time, he would try to save the babies.

But would his long-ago girlfriends agree? Or might they also consider the abortions a choice that set them on a better path?

Aubert looks startled. "I never really thought about it for the woman," he says slowly.

Jesus! He didn't even go with that girl to get "their" abortion? And he's never CONSIDERED what her life is like?

No one wants to get an abortion. It's a hard decision that can haunt you, but it's also a hard decision that could be the best decision you make. Yes, it sucks that guys don't get the final say. But it also sucks that guys can't get pregnant.

Huckabee can blame/jail doctors all he wants (we have to protect women from the big scary MALE doctors who just want to abort their precious babies! - another tactic from the "pro-life" crowd), these guys can cry and become alcoholics, but the choice always lies with the woman who has to squirt out the kid. I know it's not fair, but neither is pregnancy.

Does this mean fetuses are allowed to have guns?

Fetusii? Fetus'? I don't know the plural. Anyway...

Rock on, Veracifier




Does anyone else want to punch Kristi Burton in the face? She's kind of unbelievable.

Facts are Good

This is an interesting article from Our Bodies Our Blog about two recent studies.

Here are some highlights.

Published in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, the authors report that the prevalence of low birth weight, term low birth weight, and premature birth was higher in black women, those under 20 or over 40 years of age, less educated, and unmarried, women, among other things. They also reported that the prevalence of all of these things increased with an increasing number of previous abortions. Predictably, some anti-choice outlets jumped on this news.

The problem? The study did not distinguish between spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) and induced abortion. It was also conducted via a survey of women between 1959 and 1966, when abortion was still illegal in America, making it difficult both to assess the possible health effects of the black market procedures and to understand the level to which women were honest about what was then a criminal act.

It also ignores how women's health status and access to healthcare may be different in the study population than in today's women. In fact, anyone reading the full text of the article would find these limitations quite clearly spelled out in the Discussion portion. Ultimately, then, this single study cannot serve as a definitive statement on today's risks of induced abortion.

And more people without all the facts:

Following a study published in the Journal of Adolescent health concluding that formal sex education delays teen initiation of sex, there was no shortage of commentary suggesting that this proves the failure of abstinence-only sex ed. Regardless of the other evidence on comprehensive vs. abstinence-only sex education, this study does not make a conclusion on the issue, because it simply can't.

The researchers looked at any formal sex education conducted by a school, church, or community organization, but did not separate the programs by the type of content delivered. As in the earlier study, the authors make this quite clear in their Discussion section, stating, "No conclusions about type of sex education (i.e., comprehensive sex education vs. focus on abstinence-only) can be drawn from this analysis."

Just want to help get the facts straight.