-
BlogHer Ad Network More from BlogHer Advertise here BlogHer Privacy Policy -
"In my heart, I think a woman has two choices: either she's a feminist or a masochist." --Gloria Steinem
-
Apr
15
Mother May I?
Filed Under abortion, anti-choice extremism, assholes, cross-post, legislation, misogyny, patriarchy, pregnancy, rape and sexual assault, religious fanaticism, reproductive justice, social conservatives, violence against women and girls, women’s health | 4 Comments
Who remembers the 2005 and 2006 California propositions that tried to instate parental notification rules for minors seeking abortions? You know, the ones that failed? Well, not so fast. Looks like it’s probably going to be on the ballot this year, too. Meet the man you can thank:
Jim Holman, owner of the San Diego Reader, has spent millions trying to persuade Californians to pass a law requiring parents to be notified before their underage daughter has an abortion.
After two failed ballot measure campaigns, Holman said last year that he didn’t want to try again.
But when other anti-abortion advocates, including winemaker Don Sebastiani, launched a third campaign, Holman couldn’t resist opening up his checkbook once again.
“Sebastiani was not deterred. He said, ‘We have to go back again and again,’ ” Holman said. “He led with big donations and I sort of followed.”
The result could make California political history.
The $1.8 million donated by Holman and Sebastiani so far is likely to put a parental-notification initiative before voters for the third time in four years. The measure would require a physician to notify a parent or guardian 48 hours before performing an abortion for a girl under the age of 18.
If the measure qualifies, it would be the first time since the California initiative process was established in 1914 that the state’s voters will consider the same measure so many times in a four-year period.
Planned Parenthood is arguing that Holman, while not doing anything illegal, is abusing the electoral process, and I agree. No, money alone does not get an initiative on a ballot, but if you spend $1.8 on an issue that inspires the kind of passion abortion does and don’t manage to get the just-under 700,000 signatures needed in a very large state, you’d have to be pretty damn inept. Holman is, of course, perfectly within his rights — that doesn’t mean there’s nothing unethical about it.
Popularity: 17% [?]
Apr
10
Because a Woman’s Free Will is of Their Utmost Concern
Filed Under Democrats, abortion, anti-choice extremism, legislation, misogyny, paternalism, patriarchy, politics, rape and sexual assault, reproductive justice | 4 Comments
I know that in crazy anti-choice wingnut land, logic isn’t exactly popular. But I do believe they’ve reached new heights of insult to basic reason. The Oklahoma Senate has passed a new bill that is more or less a hodgepodge of anti-abortion legislation. Take a look at the emphasized lines at the end of this excerpt.
SB 1878 combines various pieces of abortion legislation proposed this session.
One provision would require women who seek an abortion to undergo an ultrasound within one hour of the procedure.
Dr. Dana Stone, an Oklahoma City physician who is the chairwoman of the Oklahoma Section of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, said the ultrasound legislation was of great concern to her because of its invasive nature early in pregnancy.
“The patient has no ability to opt out,” she said.
Lamb noted that the legislation does not require a woman to view the ultrasound images.
It does require that the images be displayed so the woman may see them. It also requires the examiner to give a medical description of the images, to include dimensions of the embryo or fetus and the presence of cardiac activity.
The bill also would require minors who seek abortions to provide written parental consent. Lamb said that is needed to ensure that minors aren’t coerced into ending pregnancy.
I reread those sentences several times, flabbergasted and convinced that I had interpreted them incorrectly. But no, I can still read. An author of the bill is actually arguing that requiring a minor to get written permission from her parents to have an abortion would ensure that she has not been coerced into ending a pregnancy.
Here is a list of anti-choice beliefs that one would have to buy into for this to make even a remote amount of sense:
- All men are sexual predators
- Therefore, women do not want abortions but are always pushed into them by their partners who want to continue having casual unprotected sex without consequences
- The decision to end a pregnancy is somehow fundamentally different from the decision to continue a pregnancy
- Until 18, all females are the property of their parents
- Until 18, one does not have a fundamental right to health care
- All parents are anti-choice, and none of them are abusive, which means that they could never be the ones who are coercing their daughter into an abortion
- Somehow, these anti-choice parents would never use the requirement of written permission to coerce her daughter out of an abortion, except . . .
- As stated, pregnant women are helpless and one could never actually want an abortions for her own reasons (like not wanting a baby). And if she does, she just needs to be talked down because all those baby-making hormones are making her a little irrational and unable to understand how very badly she really does want to become a mommy in several months. So allowing parents to force their daughters to give birth is a plus.
What really does scare me though is that 38 out of 48 legislators apparently bought into this argument. All who opposed the bill were Democrats, but 14 Democrats were in favor of it. And here is one of the fucking geniuses who OK Dems can count among their ranks.
Sen. Debbe Leftwich, D-Oklahoma City, voted for the measure but said she was concerned that it would require victims of rape and incest to view an ultrasound.
Well, it’s good to know that she had some concern for the extreme emotional distress that the bill could impose upon victims of rape and incest who are already going to be in the middle of an unthinkable experience . . . and then voted for it anyway.
What a proud day for democracy, both capital and lower D.
Popularity: 15% [?]
Apr
8
What’s at Risk in Kansas
Filed Under abortion, anti-choice extremism, courts gone crazy, misogyny, paternalism, patriarchy, politics, pregnancy, religious fanaticism, reproductive justice, social conservatives, women’s health | 7 Comments
Today the Kansas Supreme Court heard arguments in the case of whether or not embattled late-term abortion provider Dr. Tiller should be forced to turn over the medical records of 2,000 patients. This battle has been going on since 2006, but has been stalled and had verdicts flipped on technicalities. The women whose medical records are being used in a game of tug-of-war by the state had this to say:
The patients, using pseudonyms to protect their identity, argue that the subpoenas represent an unconstitutional intrusion into their privacy, and that the grand jury isn’t entitled to the records because there has been no finding that the documents contain evidence of a crime.
The records contain detailed medical information, including physical and mental health histories, of women who terminated their pregnancies, sometimes under tragic circumstances, attorneys representing the patients argued.
In some instances, the patient had an abortion after learning of a severe fetal anomaly, and the medical records often include photographs of the fetus taken after the abortion, they said.
“These photographs … may also include pictures of the fetus with baby clothes, stuffed animals or blankets that the parents had hoped to give their child.
“To have these personal histories paraded out before the members of the grand jury for their scrutiny and judgment is not only a gross intrusion on the patients’ privacy, it is cruel,” stated attorney Jim Lawing.
Of course, the anti-choicers who are responsible for this legal circus (they used an obscure Kansas law that allows citizen to petition for a grand jury investigation with little or no evidence), argue that all identifying information will be removed from the records. Unsurprisingly, this argument is rather disingenuous. While the possibility of abortion patients being “outed” is of grave concern, removing identifying information doesn’t solve the full problem. The fact that the patient’s identifying information will be removed doesn’t answer the question of privacy violation. Imagine a total stranger breaking into your house and going through your personal things — photo albums, prescriptions, bedside drawers, dirty laundry, your email, etc. — but somehow turns out to be the worst robber ever, and doesn’t manage to find any bills, letters, etc. that would provide identifying information. The fact that you don’t have to worry too much about identity theft will be some relief — but you’re still going to feel hugely violated.
Popularity: 15% [?]
Apr
7
Anti-Choicers Are Furious Because Obama Cares About His Daughters
Filed Under 2008 election, Democrats, abortion, anti-choice extremism, misogyny, parenthood, paternalism, patriarchy, politics, pregnancy, religious fanaticism, reproductive justice, sex and sexuality, sexism, slut-shaming, social conservatives, women’s health | 48 Comments
You’ve probably already read about Barack Obama’s statements regarding teen pregnancy and the outrage it has inspired in forced-birth proponents. Amanda has already wonderfully skewered the reaction. This is what Obama said:
“When it comes specifically to HIV/AIDS, the most important prevention is education, which should include — which should include abstinence education and teaching the children — teaching children, you know, that sex is not something casual. But it should also include — it should also include other, you know, information about contraception because, look, I’ve got two daughters. 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby. I don’t want them punished with an STD at the age of 16. You know, so it doesn’t make sense to not give them information.”
I mean, really, with all the talk about sex not being anything casual and engaging in sex is a “mistake,” it would seem that Obama is pandering enough to the religious right “sex-is-bad-mmkay?” crowd. But no, instead he has made them very, very angry. Honestly, I think they’re pissed because of his reasonable assertion that telling kids not to have sex doesn’t mean they’re going to listen. But in typical “the liberal made a reasonable point — quick, make everyone look over here!” fashion, they’re screaming and hollering about how Obama said that babies are punishment. They also claim that his comments were about abortion, which is blatantly false, even if the comments he made do easily carry over and most likely influence his pro-choice views.
Popularity: 21% [?]
Apr
4
Don’t Let ACOG Back Down
Filed Under abortion, action alert, activism, anti-choice extremism, assholes, religious fanaticism, reproductive justice, social conservatives, women’s health | 6 Comments
Last week, I wrote about a Bush official who had written to the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG) about their new guidelines, which state that ethical practice requires doctors to refer patients to another doctor for any services (birth control, abortion, etc.) that they themselves will not perform due to conscientious objection. The Bush official, U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt, wanted this section removed. In other words, the Bush Administration sees no ethical obligation for doctors to refer their patients to medical services that they personally don’t like.
A few days later, I received an email from Steve at Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health, and he shared some disturbing news. Extremist conservative doctors within ACOG have used Leavitt’s letter as an opportunity to challenge the organization — and have succeeded in getting ACOG in holding a special meeting to reevaluate the guidelines!
These doctors are fighting for the right to prevent women from receiving medical care due to their own personal beliefs — not just from themselves, but from any doctor. As I think all of us here have agreed, patients have a right to know all of their options and receive prompt, quality medical care. Withholding information from patients is absolutely unacceptable. Also keep in mind that this section of the guidelines is in no way binding; it just really hurts the poor anti-choice doctors’ feelings to be be referred to as unethical. And who can blame them? Getting called out on your own shit isn’t fun.
Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health have been working with ACOG in an attempt to ensure that they don’t back down from their extremely commonsense position. They’ve also started writing letters to the ACOG leadership; we can’t let the wingnuts who are in a definite minority succeed in making their voices louder.
Click here to send a letter and pass the information on. I honestly have not seen this issue discussed elsewhere. Anti-choicers are great at giant publicity stunts, but they’re even better at stealth operations. And their stealth is usually what hands them a victory. This is some publicity they’re not going to want. I think we owe it to ourselves to make sure they get it.
Popularity: 14% [?]
Apr
2
Zombie SD Abortion Ban Done with Legislators, Moving on to Citizens’ Brains
Filed Under abortion, anti-choice extremism, assholes, misogyny, paternalism, patriarchy, rape and sexual assault, religious fanaticism, reproductive justice, slut-shaming, social conservatives, violence against women and girls, women’s health | 17 Comments
Dear Leslee Unruh,
Why, exactly, do you hate women so much? What did a vagina, yours or someone else’s, ever do to you? Did your uterus really piss you off at some point? Did some lady give you a nasty look as a child? What is it about the XX chromosome that makes you want to punish as many human beings carrying it around as you possibly can?
No, really, I have to know. What is it about yourself and the rest of us that makes you spend your every waking moment, every single breath you get on this earth, trying to make sure that people with similar biological makeup live a miserable, oppressed, torturous existence?
What is it? And once you figure it out, please get yourself some fucking therapy and leave the rest of us alone.
–
I’ve written about the zombie South Dakota abortion ban before. For those of you out there who think that maybe, just maybe, Leslee Unruh actually does think that she’s doing something good, that she really is stupid enough to believe that making the autonomous decision to have an abortion is more damaging to a woman than forcing her to give birth to an infant she does not want or cannot afford, for those of you who think that she’s just a woman ridiculous enough to think that an embryo deserves more rights than the born human being carrying it, and really she just loves embryo-babies so much that she can’t control herself . . . you’re wrong. This woman hates women. I don’t know how she feels about babies. I have an inkling that she couldn’t give a shit less about them, but maybe she loves them and even intends to start adopting them from the orphanages she sees as a fair “compromise” on abortion for everyone involved. It doesn’t matter. Because the fact remains that she hates women, and so does her ilk.
How do I know that? Because I’ve read the text of the new abortion ban legislation she’s gleefully shoving on the South Dakota ballot this November (pdf).
Popularity: 17% [?]
Mar
26
Bush Official: Doctor’s Right to Withold Information Greater Than Patient’s Right to Receive It
Filed Under Republicans, abortion, anti-choice extremism, assholes, misogyny, patriarchy, politics, religious fanaticism, reproductive justice, social conservatives, women’s health | 53 Comments
Surprise, surprise: the Bush Administration thinks that Ob/Gyns should not only have the right to deny women basic medical care like abortion, emergency contraception or regular old birth control, but they should also be able to refuse to provide a referral to another doctor for these services.
Last Friday, U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt sent a letter to the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology, with a copy to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
Leavitt said he was concerned about an ethics committee statement from ACOG in November stating that doctors should either be prepared to perform “standard reproductive services” or else refer those patients to someone who will.
Leavitt’s letter said he was even more concerned that the Ob/Gyn board had made adherence to that policy a requirement for certification.
Pro-life Ob/Gyns complained that that would require them to make abortion referrals, something they morally opposed. And in his letter, Leavitt said that could violate federal laws protecting health workers’ conscience rights.
But here’s the thing. Also shockingly, Leavitt is an idiot. Not only because he sent such an outrageous letter in response to such a practical guideline — essentially stating that a person actually does have a right to medical care regardless of who their doctor prays to on Sunday — but because the board in no way makes adherence to this commonsense guideline a requirement for certification. It should be a requirement, of course; I don’t really know how the hell you could certify a doctor who refuses to provide his or her patients with basic information about services he or she doesn’t like and expect an acceptable result. But the fact remains that it’s not a requirement. And so Leavitt is not only an asshole who thinks doctors should be able to withhold information, he’s also an asshole who doesn’t bother to verify information before widely disseminating it.
Popularity: 18% [?]
Mar
11
An Open Letter to Governor Eliot Spitzer
Filed Under Democrats, abortion, assholes, misogyny, politics, reproductive justice, sex work, sexual exploitation and harassment, women’s health | 14 Comments
Well you’ve certainly fucked things up, now haven’t you?
I was at the FPA conference in the Empire State Plaza, yesterday. That’d be Family Planned Advocates of NY State. You may remember that you were scheduled to speak there that morning, though with so much else going on, I wouldn’t be surprised if it slipped your mind.
You spoke there last year, and I was honestly very impressed. You were by far the most famous public official whose presence I’ve ever been in, but much more than that, you were unwaveringly pro-choice and pro-woman. Of course, you were at a conference for family planning supporters. But the media was there, and I’ve heard that other prominent speakers have not taken the opportunity to make a statement nearly as dramatic and affirmative. Frankly, I was very happily surprised with your display of enthusiasm and dedication. I’m almost embarrassed to remember how lucky I felt to have you as a governor. I thought “for a politician, this guy is pretty great.”
When you didn’t show up this morning, we were told that you had a “last minute emergency” that needed attending to. And I suppose that you did! Of course, you didn’t tell organizers the reason, and the news hadn’t broken yet, so we spent the whole morning talking about what an amazing governor you are. All of the legislators and other speakers invoked your name a lot of times, and I’d say that despite your absence, you probably got the most applause of the entire morning! That made us look and feel pretty foolish.
But don’t worry. That’s not why I’m mad at you. I have far more important and rational reasons than that.
Popularity: 24% [?]
Mar
9
National Day of Appreciation for Abortion Providers
Filed Under abortion, activism, anti-choice extremism, reproductive justice | 3 Comments
I will be gone all day tomorrow for the Family Planned Advocates of NYS Conference. So I’m going to post this a little early.
National Day of Appreciation for Abortion Providers is on March 10th. It’s a day that I’ve always felt deserved more attention. It seems to me that it’s rarely recognized, anymore, and that’s a shame. Because abortion providers do deserve our thanks.
Why? Because all of this — activism, donating, voting, etc. — would be absolutely worthless without the providers who actually do provide abortions. Because providing abortions is risky, in that it subjects you to threats, insults, stalking, secrecy, harassment, lawsuits, politicians controlling your practice, and if you’re really unlucky, the occasional gunshot wound. Because it’s much, much easier to just not provide abortions, and they do it anyway. Because without them, there would be no “choice.” Abortion can be as legal as legal gets; if doctors will not perform them, women are still going to end up with perforated uteruses or children they can’t care for or don’t want. (And the antis know this — hence the stalking, harassing, shooting, etc.)
I wish that I had time to write more. But since I have to leave at 4:30a.m., I really ought to go to bed.
I strongly encourage you to look up the address to your nearest Planned Parenthood or other abortion provider and write them a letter of gratitude. I’m sure that they won’t mind it arriving a few days late. Also, encourage others to do the same.
Popularity: 19% [?]
Mar
5
Not the Kind of Consent I Support
Filed Under abortion, anti-choice extremism, assholes, courts gone crazy, discrimination, legislation, misogyny, paternalism, patriarchy, reproductive justice, sex and sexuality, slut-shaming, social conservatives, women’s health | 5 Comments
Arizona, apparently discontented with simply attempting to strip pregnant drug addicts of their human and civil rights, has now decided to work on destroying any rights that pregnant teenagers in the state may have left. A new bill would mandate that the only way a teenage girl can get a court waiver for an abortion without parental consent is to prove that she is mature enough to make the decision. Sound kind of vague? It is. And that’s precisely the point.
A minor would have to prove by clear and convincing evidence that she is mature enough to get an abortion without her parents’ consent, under a bill passed Tuesday by the House of Representatives.
Supporters say that HB 2263 just codifies a 2003 ruling on the existing parental-consent law by the Arizona Court of Appeals, in which the court specified criteria that can be used to determine if a minor is mature enough to make the decision to have an abortion.
Under the bill, the court could consider factors, including whether the minor has traveled on her own, handled her own finances, lived outside her parents’ home and made other significant decisions.
The measure also requires the court to weigh whether she has considered all her options and the potential consequences.
You know, the standard “a teenage girl who can’t confide in her daddy about an abortion needs her legislators and judges to take his place, and a daddy’s job is to restrict his daughter’s life no matter what the consequences” kind of fare. But what the hell does “mature enough” mean? Does anyone know? And what teenage girl handles her finances while living outside of the home before age 17? A few, certainly, but come on, now.
In this article we get a vague but somewhat more reliable description of how “mature enough” will actually be interpreted:
Popularity: 22% [?]
Mar
3
Pregnant Women and Drug Addicts: They’re People, Too.
Filed Under WOC issues, abortion, class and economics, discrimination, human rights, legislation, misogyny, paternalism, patriarchy, pregnancy, race and racism, reproductive justice, women’s health | 6 Comments
Last week, reader Jessica sent me a link to a story about new legislation being considered in her state that would forcibly imprison pregnant women suspected of being addicted to methamphetamine, sending them to drug treatment facilities against their will. The Arizona bill is, of course, designed to protect fetuses, not women.
The Senate Judiciary Committee took the first steps toward approving SB 1500 Monday, mandating that state Child Protective Services workers go to court if they know or have reasonable grounds to believe a mother-to-be is using meth and is not getting voluntary treatment.
That order would require the mother to cooperate.
The legislation would let CPS ask a judge to have sheriff’s deputies actually pick up the woman and bring her to a facility for treatment.
Sen. Pamela Gorman, R-Anthem, said she’s not normally a proponent of government intervention into private lives.
“But I do think that the state has some very specific roles,” she said. “And one of them is to protect people from harm from other people.”
Indeed: the state has a specific role to protect people from harm, so long as the person isn’t a pregnant woman being harmed by the government who thinks that pregnancy gives them total control over her body.
The bill would expand the child abuse statutes to include methamphetamine use during pregnancy — essentially, defining child abuse as something a woman does to harm herself, intentionally or unintentionally, while carrying a fetus. It seems that all legislators opposed to the bill are doing so on the basis that it challenges abortion rights, or at least presents a slippery slope for challenges later on down the line.
Critics of the proposal are concerned that Gorman is trying to give the measure some teeth by extending the definition of what now constitutes “child abuse” to fetuses.
Sen. Ken Cheuvront, D-Phoenix, pointed out the existing definition of child abuse includes acts that endanger the life of a child. He said Gorman’s bill could be interpreted as prohibiting abortion.
From a practical standpoint, Cheuvront said he doubts that Gov. Janet Napolitano would sign any bill she believes interferes with the right of a woman to terminate her pregnancy.
Gorman said that wasn’t her intent.
But committee members refused to remove that language.
While I thank Cheuvront for opposing the bill and hope that he and other legislators continue to vocally do so, I think that his reasons are troubling and just plain off the mark. The problem is that, regardless of what Cheuvront actually feels, this kind of argument suggests that if it were possible to pass the legislation without putting abortion rights in any sort of danger, there would not be a problem.
I’m naturally wary of slippery slope arguments. They are often valid, but they often aren’t. Even when the slippery slope is a very real possibility, I think that this is just a shitty way to make your case. Okay, so the bill could potentially be used as a basis for anti-abortion legislation in the future. This is bad. But if it’s capable of doing this, there has to be a problem with the bill right now, a reason why this legislation is a bad idea for what it is and not what it could later encourage.
Luckily, there is such an argument, and it’s one that I’m actually far more concerned with at the moment.