-
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
27
Oh No They Didn’t
Filed Under education and schools, fun, media, pop culture, random, religious fanaticism | 8 Comments
You know that stupid Ben Stein movie Expelled, that argues in favor of “intelligent design” and chastises the sane for not allowing religious bullshit to be taught in science classes? Apparently, they used the John Lennon song Imagine in the film . . . without permission.
Yoko Ono, one of my all-time favorite feminists, isn’t having any of that shit. The issue came to her attention when bloggers started accusing her of selling out. And so she slapped the filmmakers with a lawsuit.
Popularity: 20% [?]
Apr
16
The Cost of Unwed Parenting?
Filed Under bigotry, class and economics, parenthood, patriarchy, politics, religious fanaticism, reproductive justice, sexism, social conservatives, stereotypes | 14 Comments
There have been previous attempts to calculate the cost of divorce in America. But the sponsors of the new study, being released Tuesday, said theirs is the first to gauge the broader cost of ”family fragmentation” — both divorce and unwed childbearing.
The study was conducted by Georgia State University economist Ben Scafidi. His work was sponsored by four groups who consider themselves part of a nationwide ”marriage movement” — the New York-based Institute for American Values, the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, Families Northwest of Redmond, Wash., and the Georgia Family Council, an ally of the conservative ministry Focus on the Family.
”The study documents for the first time that divorce and unwed childbearing — besides being bad for children — are costing taxpayers a ton of money,” said David Blankenhorn, president of the Institute for American Values.
”We keep hearing this from state legislators, ‘Explain to me why this is any of my business? Aren’t these private matters?”’ Blankenhorn said. ”Take a look at these numbers and tell us if you still have any doubt.”
Scafidi’s calculations were based on the assumption that households headed by a single female have relatively high poverty rates, leading to higher spending on welfare, health care, criminal justice and education for those raised in the disadvantaged homes. The $112 billion estimate includes the cost of federal, state and local government programs, and lost tax revenue at all levels of government.
Wait, an assumption? That can’t be right, can it — that they based a study on prejudice and stereotypes rather than facts? *Rechecks who funded study* Oh.
Hey folks, you want to know what doesn’t cost society a damn dime? Domestic violence, child abuse, alcoholism, drug addiction, compulsive gambling, kids growing up in a house with two parents who hate each other, kids growing up in a house with parents who are always angry and bitter, depression, stress-induced/agitated health conditions, and a general understanding that people can’t expect or deserve happiness. Why not go back to the good old days?!
Popularity: 17% [?]
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% [?]
Feb
28
We Don’t Need No (Sex)Education
Filed Under education and schools, religious fanaticism, reproductive justice, sex and sexuality, social conservatives, women’s health | 10 Comments
Here’s a shocker: the teachers who are forced to act as puppets for the “if you lie enough times it will become true” abstinence-only brigade haven’t got the slightest clue what they’re doing. How many of you received this kind of “education” and got precisely that impression?
A sizable minority of sex education teachers does not cover all of the basics, and many lack training to teach sex ed at all, a survey of teachers in one state suggests.
In a study of sex ed teachers at 201 Illinois schools, researchers found that one-third of teachers did not give comprehensive instruction — defined as covering the four basic topics of abstinence, birth control, HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases.
In addition, 30 percent said they had no special training in teaching sex education, and these teachers were less likely to teach a comprehensive course.
“For this study, we set the bar for comprehensiveness fairly low relative to what most medical and public health organizations recommend,” lead researcher Dr. Stacy Tessler Lindau said in a statement, “and one out of three programs failed to clear it.”
[. . .]
The study involved 335 sex ed teachers at Illinois middle schools and high schools. Lindau and her colleagues defined “comprehensive sex education” as courses teaching both abstinence and contraception, as well as information on HIV and other STDs.
They left out a fifth, more controversial topic often recommended by public health experts: giving students information on where to go for sexual health services, condoms and birth control.
Overall, two-thirds of teachers met this more relaxed definition of comprehensive education. In general, the most frequently covered topics were HIV and STDs, which about 96 percent of teachers said they addressed. Eighty-nine percent of teachers covered the topic of abstinence-until-marriage.
Among the least frequently taught subjects were homosexuality, abortion and information on how to use condoms or birth control properly.
[. . .]
When it came to discussing condoms and birth control, teachers who omitted the topic generally did so because it was not in the official curriculum or because of “school or district policy.” About half of teachers also lacked confidence in their ability to teach the topic — rating their ability as anywhere from “average” to “very poor.”
Well Christ, if I was forced to teach a room full of teenagers on a subject they will have dire interest in without any training, the expectation that I’ll going to lie, and a whole bunch of questions I can’t or am not allowed to answer, I wouldn’t feel so confident either.
Popularity: 20% [?]
Feb
26
If Anti-Choicers Want Women to Know Their Rights, I’ve Got an Offer They Can’t Refuse
Filed Under abortion, anti-choice extremism, assholes, legislation, misogyny, paternalism, patriarchy, pregnancy, religious fanaticism, reproductive justice, slut-shaming, women’s health | 20 Comments
Following in the great misogynist leader South Dakota’s footsteps, anti-choice havens Kansas and Missouri are working on new legislation to restrict abortion, burden providers, condescend to patients, and all around cause more hardship and pain to any woman unfortunate enough to be pregnant and not jumping for joy over it.
Of course, they’re not going phrase it like that. (Would you be so delusional that you’d accuse an anti-choice legislator of intellectual honesty?) No, the Republicans are going to ride in on their white horses to protect women from being coerced and forced into abortions.
The stated aim of the proposed requirements is to ensure that women are not coerced into undergoing abortions. In Kansas, the new restrictions would apply only to abortions after the 22nd week of development, while most of the Missouri proposals would apply to all abortions performed in the state.
In both states, legislation would require doctors to provide the woman with the opportunity to view a sonogram of the embryo or fetus or listen to the heartbeat before performing the surgery. Abortion offices would be required to have a prominent sign stating that no one can force a woman to have an abortion.
In Missouri, two bills would require women seeking abortions to be shown brochures or a video developed by the state Health Department providing a description of the developing embryo or fetus. The materials would include “color photographs or images of the developing unborn child at two-week gestational increments” from conception to full term.
The woman would be given a list of adoption agencies and maternity homes that could assist her in maintaining her pregnancy. She also would be given a statement that she would be eligible for child-support payments if she carried the child to term.
The doctor would have to provide a list of potential medical complications from abortion and discuss theories about whether a fetus can feel pain.
Planned Parenthood, in its weekly newsletter, criticized the bills, calling them a “convoluted checklist of bills (that) demonstrates a lack of understanding of how professional abortion care is provided.” It said the bills’ requirements were burdensome and interfered with a woman’s rights to determine when an abortion is appropriate.
Supporters said the legislation was intended to ensure women are fully informed about the risks and consequences of abortion — something already required, but with less detail, by Missouri law.
Let me just say first of all that I get a lot news from the Kansas City Star about anti-choice activities. And believe me, they are far from perfect. I do, however, think that they have a higher degree of integrity on reproductive rights issues than most newspapers, and they actually tend to do a decent job of clarifying the facts against the rhetoric. Like here: anti-choice legislators claim that they are concerned about women and want them to know the risk, but the fact of the matter is that this is already required.
Popularity: 24% [?]
Feb
20
My Daughter Has a Hand Mirror, and Other Signs that the Sky is Falling
Filed Under assholes, books, education and schools, misogyny, patriarchy, religious fanaticism, sex and sexuality, sexism, social conservatives, women’s health | 22 Comments
Be Very Afraid: the root of all sexual deviancy is laying next to your bathroom sink.
I know that this is way too easy. But all the same, when I ran across this “opinion piece” in the RH Reality Check news aggregator, I laughed so hard that I nearly sprayed orange juice across the computer screen. It just screams satire, and yet is absolutely, frighteningly serious. From Robert H. Knight, Sex Education Veers the Wrong Way:
What is it with “advice” experts? Are they all drinking the decades-old Kool-Aid from sex researcher Alfred C. Kinsey?
A case in point: In her “Family Almanac” column in the Feb. 15 Washington Post, Marguerite Kelly advises a mother to steer her curious 11-year-old boy away from the Internet and toward the kiddie sex book, “It’s Perfectly Normal.”
An illustrated, over-sized hardback by Robie H. Harris, “It’s Perfectly Normal” has sold more than 1 million copies. It’s full of colorful drawings of nude people, sexual activities including masturbation by both sexes, and even a girl leaning over and holding a mirror between her legs, so she and the reader can examine her nether regions.
If you felt violated just reading this description, imagine how kids feel when looking at the pictures. The book title sums up the author’s agenda, which is to promote all varieties of sex as “perfectly normal.”
That’s right: “even a girl leaning over and holding a mirror between her legs.” I can’t get over the hilarious and telling nature of the fact that among those who think the worst possible human action anyone could commit is to experience any form of pleasure without asking God pretty please first and promising to think of Him the whole time, a girl having a peek at her vulva is the most outlandish offense in a book all about sex. Not the dirty, sinful nudity. Or the shockingly anti-Biblical depictions of sexual activities by presumably unmarried people, including spilling one’s seed. The worst part is a girl foolishly thinking that she has a right to know what her genitals look like. Crazy liberals, don’t they know that God put a girl’s “down there” down there for a reason??? It wasn’t to sell hand mirrors, that’s for sure!
Popularity: 41% [?]