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.

Medicaid Family Planning State Option FAIL

Yesterday, Obama caved to Republicans and facilitated the removal of family planning from the stimulus package. I find myself thinking about many scenes from The West Wing (again):



"This is about getting votes from white men."

I wish Amy Gardner was a real person. (I know we have women like her out there...I'm just feeling mopey right now.)

Planned Parenthood lays it out better than I ever could:

The Medicaid Family Planning State Option is a simple way to make health care affordable for millions of Americans. It would do two important things:

1. It would allow millions of women to obtain basic health care. It would extend safety-net health care coverage for millions of people, including many who are losing their jobs and health insurance in the economic downturn. Studies estimate that 2.3 million low-income women would receive coverage under this provision by 2014, and 500,000 women would be able to avoid unintended pregnancies.

2. In these difficult times, this provision would save states money. State budgets are being squeezed by the economic downturn, just as millions are losing their jobs and health insurance. The Medicaid Family Planning State Option not only would help states extend their coverage, it would generate savings for states and the federal government by expanding access to preventive care.

Please, take two minutes now to help us raise a public outcry.

Call the White House (202-456-1111). Let them know that during this tough economic time, expanding access to basic health care is more important than ever for women and families.

For more details, click here.

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.

"Pink" Viagra: Why's It Always Gotta Be Pink?

The search for the little blue pill's counterpart for women continues. I wonder if they made Viagra blue just so women would know which pill is theirs.

Our Bodies, Ourselves recently posted an article expressing concerns about the marketing of a woman's sexual dysfunction drug.

They also linked to another post about the "feminist view on female sexual dysfunction."

Apparently, my sistren believe that, should scientists discover a "pink" Viagra, commercials would target women who are just not interested in sex. Young, stressed, busy, unfortunate women.

Okay, I can see that. But is that a reason not to discover this drug? Many older women experience a lower sex drive because of a MEDICAL PROBLEM. Why shouldn't they use something to help them?

There are men that are too busy, stressed, and depressed to have sex, too. No one's worried that they'll feel like something's wrong with them.

I understand the concern. I get it. Marketing campaigns could easily try to make women feel bad for not wanting to have sex. And I'm sure they won't use the female version of Bob Dole for their commercials.But Viagra is for dudes who want to have sex and just can't get it up. This drug should be for the same thing. Women don't have a physical indicator that they're ready for sex, but a drug that increases blood flow to the genitals could increase lubrication and relax the vaginal muscles.

According to Discovery, around 43% of women experience sexual dysfunction, compared to 31% of men. If a woman wants to want sex more than she does, she should have the same tools men have to take care of that. Sure, drug commercials manipulate people. But why is this one more heinous than...say...Prozac commercials that make everyone think they're depressed? Yes, this drug targets women. But isn't that the point?

Isn't this "concern" equivalent to the concern that birth control pills encourage women to have sex more? Why do we think women are more easily manipulated than men?

STDs for Everyone!

A recent study from the CDC shows that ONE IN FOUR American teenage girls (age 14-19) have STDs, reports the BBC News.

Nearly half of black teens surveyed had at least one STD, while only 20% of white and Mexican-American teens tested positive. This is from a "representative" sample.

The most "popular" STD? HPV. Hmmm...maybe we should get a vaccine for that and make it available to poor people.

I couldn't find the study on the CDC, which worries me. I don't like to just take other people's words for it.

But this is just another sign that we need to teach sex ed in high schools. Abstinence-only education OBVIOUSLY doesn't work. These girls are going to have sex no matter what. Teach them how to protect themselves. We're leaving them defenseless because our president is an Evangelical, and it pisses me off.

According to the BBC, the CDC is recommending mandatory screening and an HPV vaccine. Okay, fine. But why don't we try to solve the problem before it starts? Hand out condoms in the streets, lower the cost of birth control, and TEACH these girls how to keep themselves safe.

ARGH!

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.

Dear, Use Me While Having in Sex

Dancing condoms and ninjas. This gets really good around five minutes in.



I'm glad stuff like this exists in India. Sure, it goes on a little long, but it's mesmerizing. Imagine those condom guys walking down the street.

Condoms for everyone!

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.

Planned Parenthood...WHY?

I love Planned Parenthood I used to volunteer for them, I've thought about going to protests with them (too lazy - I know - LOSER!), and I get my yearly exams from them. But I gotta say: this is kind of a crappy commercial:



Sure, it's for MTV and VH1. Maybe that audience will find it funny. I just thought it was going to go somewhere good. "Planned Parenthood Airlines?" Condoms falling from the overhead compartment? And what's with the heart-shaped lollipop? And do we need to have a talk about gay stereotypes?

Just hire me, Planned Parenthood, we'll make some magic. Have you thought about animated condoms?

Damn. Of course. There's something already out there. Mine would be more interesting and more cartoon-y. Promise.


Put him on!

Does the good news make the bad news hurt any less?

Good news first: Portland, Maine is awesome!

Okay, so I'm pretty partial to the Portland on the other side of the country, but Maine deserves some major thumbs in the up direction.

King Middle School, in Portland, will have birth control and STD education onsite.

Okay, so it sounds a little more shocking than it really is. An independently operated health care center already exists at the school, but they're now allowed to administer immunizations, and physicals, as well as the little pink baby-preventing pills to middle-schoolers.

Of course, some parents are outraged, in the fist-to-the-sky, why I would-a, do-nothing kind of way. Surprisingly, most are okay with it. What, we're letting our children get an education and teaching them how to be safe and no one's bombing the clinic? It's an outrage!

And we might be able to count on our new chief birth control officer (officially, acting deputy assistant secretary for population affairs) to correct this aberration on the face of society. Susan Orr may soon take birth control away from all of us. With her track record, how could she just sit by and watch all those whores have sex willy nilly?