-
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
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
19
“Conscience” has nothing to do with it
Filed Under anti-choice extremism, class and economics, courts gone crazy, discrimination, human rights, misogyny, patriarchy, rape and sexual assault, reproductive justice, slut-shaming, women’s health | 14 Comments
Yet again, an Illinois court is hearing a case about the state’s requirement that all pharmacies dispense emergency contraception. This time it’s in the Illinois Supreme Court hearing the same old tired crap about how requiring a person whose job is to provide medical care to actually provide medical care is somehow breaching their rights.
The rule doesn’t require pharmacies to stock Plan B, but it does require pharmacies to order the medicine if a patient requests it.
The patients whose prescriptions were returned by Vander Bleek and Kosirog’s pharmacies didn’t ask that the medicine be ordered when told that the businesses didn’t stock Plan B. But if asked, the pharmacies would refuse to order Plan B. That could result in suspension of their licenses to operate, Rienzi said.
Okay. Good. I actually doubt that the state would have the nerve to suspend their license, but if they did? Good. They should. I don’t think I’ve made it any big secret that I absolutely do not believe pharmacists should have the right to refuse to dispense EC. While pharmacies are indeed private businesses, they also happen to provide a public service. Refusing medical care is not okay.
Popularity: 20% [?]
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
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.
Popularity: 24% [?]
Feb
29
On sexual assault and language
Filed Under feminism, misogyny, patriarchy, rape and sexual assault, violence against women and girls, women’s health | 11 Comments
Considering the Heather MacDonald op-ed this week that claimed a woman who does not refer to her experience of having non-consensual sex forced upon her by the proper word has not actually been raped, one might think that there would be some small vindication in this news item. And indeed, it certainly does make MacDonald look like even more of a dumbass than she already does. But instead, it just makes me profoundly sad.
A Tri-State sexual assault and domestic violence agency has gone back to its roots.
The “Rape Crisis and Abuse Center” will once again become known as “Women Helping Women.”
Executive Director Ann MacDonald said they originally changed the name to the “Rape Crisis and Abuse Center” in 2003 in order to include male victims of sexual assault.
However, Macdonald said that some did not feel comfortable with the new name.
“Our decision to go back to ‘Women Helping Women’ doesn’t mean we’re not going to say the word rape because it is a key piece of what we do in terms of crisis intervention and support services for those victims,” MacDonald said. “But it means we’ve got a name that people are saying that they feel comfortable coming too.”
This editorial has more detail:
In 2003, the social service agency Women Helping Women changed its name to Rape Crisis & Abuse Center of Hamilton County. Executive director Ann McDonald noticed a disturbing difference immediately.
Speaking to groups about the organization, McDonald would mention the center’s name and faces would freeze. In one-to-one conversations, people would seem to tense at the name. Initially, even fund-raising took a hit.
“It was the word,” McDonald says. “The word rape scares people.”
Wednesday, the center announced it is returning to the name Women Helping Women, even though it helps male victims of sexual abuse as well, welcomes male volunteers and certainly still considers supporting victims of rape one of its main missions.
Besides clouding the fact that the center also works heavily with victims of domestic violence, the old name created distance - the very thing a victims’ advocacy group can’t afford. “We need people to hear us,” McDonald says.
Critics may say the center should have maintained its name on principle, that refusing to back off the word is one way to shatter the stigma. But in this case, a challenge to semantics isn’t as important as keeping a vital service viable and alive.
I think a lot of us who do any form of anti-rape activism — even if that just means breaking the silence by talking about sexual assault — have come across this phenomenon before, probably more than once. Particularly when you talk about what rape really is. Rape scares people when they think they know what it means — a guy jumping out of the bushes, beating the shit out of a woman, penetrating her vaginally with