It's been a long time since I've gotten hate mail from the anti's. Was sorta thinking I wasn't loved anymore.

Grace555 sent me a photo and its description is here:

One of the most used pictures for a third trimester "abortion" is a picture of a severed head on OR rings- if the forceps securing its head over the jar are standard OR ring forceps, the ring is 1 x 0.5 centimeters, which would mean that the head is too small to be in its third trimester, yet one less developed would not have that much hair, says Dr. Andrew Ross, a Denver ob-gyn. "I strongly suspect that this picture is fake, and the information on the card certainly does not match what's shown," he adds. The second, and most obvious, fallacy lies within the description. It says that the pictured fetus was aborted in 1987 in Texas. However, that was the year that third trimester abortions were banned, rendering the alleged procedure altogether illegal.4 Not to mention that third trimester abortions are illegal to perform now- and when they were legal, accounted for only some 320-600, or under 4/100ths of 1% of all abortions.5 [link]

Cara over at The Curvature just blogged about these photos & their use in street demonstrations. And as I commented over there, I've seen these photos. So save yourself the bandwidth and time and don't send 'em to me. I'm not shocked by them and frankly I don't believe that they are a real depiction of abortion.

I'd rather look at the photos of the women who have died due to a lack of access to safe abortion.

Labels: abortion

While I'm not dancing, I am reminded and reminding you all of what this man stood for:

And, I know that I'll hear from them for this. But, throwing God out successfully with the help of the federal court system, throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools. The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way -- all of them who have tried to secularize America -- I point the finger in their face and say, "You helped this happen."
-- Rev Jerry Falwell, blaming civil libertarians, feminists, homosexuals, and abortion rights supporters for the terrorist attacks of Tuesday, September 11, 2001, quoted from John F Harris, "God Gave US 'What We Deserve,' Falwell Says," The Washington Post (September 14, 2001)

I hope I live to see the day when, as in the early days of our country, we won't have any public schools. The churches will have taken them over again and Christians will be running them. What a happy day that will be!
-- Rev Jerry Falwell, America Can Be Saved, 1979 pp. 52-53, from Albert J Menendez and Edd Doerr, The Great Quotations on Religious Freedom

Quotes HT.

And for a view of Jerry that you might not hear in the mainstream media, visit Campus Progress.

Lastly, Tinky Winky is now free to love whomever its wants to love.

Labels: abortion, feminism

If this isn't the most beautiful photo I've seen, I don't know what is.

I received the current issue of Ms. in the mail a few days ago. As faithful readers know, I have a love/hate relationship with Ms. I chalk it up to my evolving feminism and their inability to really reach out to younger feminists. By this photo, hopefully this kick ass mom will help with that bridge.

So what's inside this issue? Racism, Iraq, Germs, Global Warming, HPV, Immigration, and Taxes.

The article I most looked forward to is hyped on the cover as "1,024 things to do with a Women's Studies Degree." As someone with two women's studies minors and a hubby who loves to quote Alex P. Keaton, "Women's Studies...haha!" this topic is near and dear to me. While inside there is not a list of exactly 1.024 things that can be done with a Women's Studies degree, it does discuss the evolution of students who earn Women's Studies degrees.

"In the early years, women's studies graduates tended to work on gender-specific issues, getting jobs in battered-women's shelters and rape crisis centers," [Beverly Guy-Sheftall] says. "But more and more we have students going into public health, international policy, journalism, electoral politics, film-making, K-12 education and other careers that allow them to effect large-scale change."

Which is how I feel about my degrees. While I my programs didn't offer full degrees, only minors and concentrations, I knew that combining my majors with Women's Studies would give my education a fuller view of my major field.

"The Talibanization of Iraq" is a must read. Whether or not you support the Iraq War or want the troops home today, the fact is that women are worse off today than before our invasion. Iraqi women share a similar history with Afgani women - We used them to justify the war. Rape rooms, the Taliban, and burkas were the way the administration and the media wanted us to see them. Today Iraqi women are too scared to leave their homes to work, shop, or organize for a better life. Women and girls are being kidnapped, tortured, raped, and killed.

Many of the bodies of women and girls who are raped and killed are not getting claimed, because families are too fearful or ashamed to identify them.

"What's Up With Kansas?" is the bright spot of this issue. Normally the butt of jokes, Kansas was at the center of a progressive revolution thanks to the 2006 elections. "Democratic Gov. Kathleen Sebelius was re-elected with 58 percent of the vote - against an anti-abortion Republican bent on abolishing the estate tax - although less than a third of Kansas voters are registered Democrats." Take a second to let that soak in. And that's not it. Kansas voters voted out Atty. Gen. Kline and a handful of state legislators who switched from the GOP to the Democratic party were reelected. So what is up with Kansas? You gotta read to find out.

Feminist economics has become a growing obsession with me since I took my first econ course in graduate school. I'm thinking I might be a kick ass econ professor by now if my fear of econ hadn't keep me out of that class for 25 years. Martha Burk gives us a wonderful essay on why taxes is a feminist issue. Some of Martha's suggestions are right on including not privatizing Social Security and removing the cap. Did you know everyone who earns more than $97,500 pays the same amount into Social Security as Donald Trump and Tom Cruise?

My one criticism is that Martha posits that paid family leave where full benefits would require dads to take leave would not help single moms. I'm assuming because being a single mom means the dad skipped town. I think we now live in a world where unmarried parents are in their child's life.

Sandy Boucher recalls in "Working-Class Hero" her 40 year friendship with author Tillie Olsen. Olsen died January 1st and left a wonderful literary legacy. Sandy's reminisces about visiting Tillie in an Alzheimer's nursing home. The piece is beautifully and lovingly written. It brought tears to my eyes not just because of their friendship, but because quite honestly each time I read a story about Alzheimer's I think of Amy and her Papa.

"The Melting Point" fabulously shows how women have played and still are in key roles in the environmental movement. It drowns in essentialism, but it's a must read article. "But will a change in U.S. leadership - led by powerful women - begin to reverse the dire direction in which we're headed?"

Which leads me to leave you with a review of the book reviews. Since I've been writing them myself, I figured I better read more of them so I can figure out my own style. I found 2 books that will be on my to read list: Nineteen Minutes by Jodi Picoult, who I hate to say I've avoided because her books look like fluffy chic-lit to me. Her latest novel deals with the why of school shooters and the hyper-masculinity that plays a vital role. Timely. Oh and she's writing a few issues of Wonder Woman too. Why didn't y'all tell me she was like this?

Sexual Decoys by Zillah Eisenstein gets to the heart of that oft-asked question, "Why don't feminists celebrate Condi's power?" Because she's not a feminist asshat. From Condi to Abu Ghraib, Eisenstein reminds us feminists and explains to the rest of society that feminism is about not just about how many women are in power, but what they do with that power.

I could go on and on about the current issue, but I won't. This is already bordering on the world's longest blog post and I hate those! Not to mention that it's so long I needed to make the font smaller. Sorry! So go hit your local feminist bookstore (if you're lucky to have one) and get the latest issue of Ms.

Labels: abortion, feminism, magazines

Labels: abortion, health

Dear Dr. Kennedy,

I've been having this problem with my girly parts. Sometimes when my Aunt Flo comes for a visit I have some awful cramps. Sometimes when she visits, if I drink milk, I um, need to powder my nose for a long time. And honestly, sometimes I'm just not a nice person to be around. Do you have anything you can recommend or prescribe for this?

Thanks,
Roni

PS: I figured that since you voted to uphold a law that makes a medical decision that you were now practicing medicine. So why go to my OBGYN when I should just go to you?

Labels: abortion, feminism, health, politics

We all know that Zell Miller thinks you white women aren't producing enough workers. What's the other side of the story?

The Guttmacher Institute has a new report out that documents that women under 21 who get pregnant and get an abortion have better educational outcomes than women who carry to term. Abstract:

CONTEXT: Young women frequently cite concerns about the effects of unplanned pregnancies on future life course outcomes, including education, employment and relationships, as reasons for seeking abortion. There is relatively little
evidence as to whether abortion leads to improved life course outcomes for young women who choose this option.

METHODS: Data from 492 women participating in a 25-year longitudinal study of a New Zealand birth cohort were used in regression models that examined the relationship between pregnancy and abortion history prior to age 21 and selected social and economic outcomes at ages 21–25.

RESULTS: Compared with young women who became pregnant before age 21 but did not seek an abortion, young women who had an abortion had significantly better outcomes on six out of 10 measures spanning education, income, welfare dependence and domestic violence. Adjustment for confounding factors indicated that most of these differences
were explained by family, social and educational characteristics that were present prior to pregnancy. Nonetheless, even after adjustment for confounding factors, young women who had abortions had higher levels of subsequent educational achievement than those who became pregnant but did not have abortions.

CONCLUSIONS: Abortion may mitigate some effects of early unplanned pregnancy. However, further study of its potential risks and benefits is needed so that women can make fully informed decisions as to whether to terminate unintended pregnancies.

Looking at the data tables, women who never got pregnant scored better on educational attainment & economic factors. That seems to have been lost when adjusting for family background...slightly.

The researchers do cite their earlier work that shows that women who have abortions do have "a moderate increase in risks of subsequent mental health problems." But the bottom line from them is that more research is needed AND that the final answer may fall in between the anti's wail of "we're going to hell" and radical pro-choice's cry "that abortion is good." Althou, I gotta say that I have never myself met someone who would say that abortion is good and everyone should have one. I myself look at this data and say this is why we need real comprehensive sex education so that we can REDUCE unwanted pregnancies and thus reduce the need for abortion AND reduce ending or disrupting women's educational careers. I'd also like to add that we need accessible and affordable child care. If women are going to carry to term pregnancies, they are going to need child care to stay in school.

There were a lot more reports that came out in this latest update. Including one that may suggest we Norplant teenagers after having an abortion. I haven't read that one...I'm a tad scared to do it. I've read way too much crap that says that Norplant & other long term contraceptives are misused, especially in poor communities, that I can't look at that report objectively. Hey, at least I'm honest.

Labels: abortion, feminism, health

You might think I would jump right to Jessica's defense when she muses about how second wavers don't treat third wavers with any respect. Well, I'm not. I'm not going to be an Auntie Tom either and apologize for the second wavers.

Being a feminist is hard enough without having to defend yourself from attacks from within.

I've been attacked personally many times from within and yes it pissed me off. I saw one of the offenders on the news in the background of a victory party and it was like a fresh attack. Yes, it's kinda like running into that ex. Except I know that Cinnamon run into her, she slinks away in shame. The "attacks" on Jessica's feminism are logical ones for a generation that is in deep flux with our identity as human beings and as feminists.

Being told you’re too young to speak on a panel...being lectured about how your opinions are naïve or misinformed...having your accomplishments looked on warily because you didn’t “pay your dues,” getting emails about how all of your hard-working feminist blogging is for naught because your logo is sexist.

I'm 32, older than Jessica, with I'd dare to say just a smidge less experience than her (at least in the glamor department, I haven't worked for a series of top-tier feminist orgs, etc...It's not sour grapes, just reality.) and I'm ok with being told that I'm too young for somethings. Because you know what? Sometimes I just am. Experience counts for A LOT in this world. At 32, I'm still exploring ideas and concepts. So I expect to be naive on some ideas. I do expect respectful criticism when I am naive. I respect that the second wavers had WAY more dues to pay than the typical well-known third waver. I say that knowing that many well-known third wavers went to some pretty nice colleges, seem to have some socioeconomic privilege, and white privilege as well. I'm not bemoaning my poor Latina background. Believe me, it pays nothing in street cred. As for your logo...we all know that the spectrum of feminists is almost as wide as the color spectrum. Someone will object to it. You chose it. Deal with it. Just as some feminists and women will not read Bitch Magazine or attend a Stitch-n-Bitch, it's their cuppa tea.

Telling young women that they’re not feminist enough is the same thing as telling them that they’re not good enough for feminism. What young woman wants to be a part of a movement that doesn’t want her?

I've learned in the past 4 years that you have to separate the individuals from the institution. Yes, it pains me that some organizations keep on racist, classist, and even ageist members in authority lines. But the way some orgs are set up, there is no place for impeachment. Then you have to blame the members or other org members who keep that person on. Sometimes you just cut off part of an org so you can keep working with the better part.

Honestly, I think every slice of feminism says "you're not good enough" when you look at the definition. That's why I call myself a bad feminist. I don't adhere to one theory of feminism. Some issues I'm a liberal. Some I'm a freakin' radical.

While I don’t know that all of this is consciously done to keep certain women away from feminism, I do believe that some of the second-wave founders want to keep a movement that’s recognizable, and comfortable, to them. And if that means only accepting and reaching out to young women who are recreating their paradigm, or who fit into their mold, then so be it.

See here, Jessica, you're lying to yourself. Hell *I* know that some second wavers are uncomfortable with third wavers & our philosophies and thus keep us just at bay. It's not about keeping us from feminism, but from certain leadership roles. That said, I think EVERY group wants only their own. That's why we have old boys clubs. And yes, feminism is old enough, strong enough to have an ol' feminists club. Bask in that slice of "woo-hoo, shit" moment. I agree that the mainstream feminist orgs are failing at reaching out to the non-converts. We've missed opportunities and aren't fully seeking new ones.

But the public face of feminism is institutional—Ms. Magazine, Feminist Majority Foundation, NOW—they’re what the world thinks of when they think of feminism...But there needs to be more—more feminists, more public faces, more room for movement-building. After all, alienating a generation of women isn’t the stuff social justice is made of.

This is why movements either die or evolve.

The suffragists went thru similar issues. Do we play nice with the boys or do we raise hell? Sometimes it is not about feminism itself, but tactics. Are we going to embrace our sexuality with push-up bras & Christina Aguilera music or privately in our bedrooms? It's not even a virgin-slut split. I think there is enough room for both - with limits AND with debate. How far do we let our inner slut out? How long do we keep her locked up in our pantie drawer? What's the ONE issue that defines feminism? Abortion? Access to health care? White Privilege? Peace? Child care? That question alone can splinter even the most homogeneous group.

I think that this issue is a very important one. We are at a pivotal moment in feminist history. The baby boomers are retiring. Gen Xers are just tasting real power. We have a full on debate on whether or not a feminist woman is good enough to be President. A FEMINIST WOMAN. Hell, 10 years ago we all would have said "D'uh, yes!" Our movement is starting a huge growth spurt and you know what, it's gonna hurt. Feelings will be hurt and some of us will get left behind or unheard. (Speaking of which, anyone still reading?)

Bottomline. To quote Jimmy Dugan from "A League of Their Own": If we're going to be leaders of this movement, it's gonna be hard. "It's supposed to be hard. If it wasn't hard, everyone would do it. The hard... is what makes it great."

Labels: abortion, feminism, feministcard

This has to be two of the hardest words to say as a teenager. It can be isolating, especially with all the shame that is out there. Well, there is a new resource for teens dealing with unplanned pregnancies.

Mom, Dad, I'm Pregnant is a project

sponsored by the Abortion Conversation Project (ACP), which is composed of abortion providers and their allies who see the need to support the people who turn to us for help. Although we mostly see people seeking information about abortion, we also refer for prenatal care and adoption services. We know that good decisions are based on good information and good support.

I know that this site is going to get ripped for being sponsored by abortion providers. It will also get ripped because it offers teens a plan for escape - just in case your parents got insane and start to hurt you physically.

It's nice to see that there is now this site that deals fairly honestly, IMO, about how to deal with your parents. I know that if I had been pregnant at 16, I would have never told my parents or just about anyone. The stakes were too high and the expecations even higher. *sigh* Too many young women deal with all of this alone far too often. Maybe this site will give them the strength to reach out to someone, hopefully a parent, but at least another human being.

Labels: abortion, feminism

From NOW:

Latest Attack on Abortion Rights Based on Scare Tactics and Questionable Science

December 4, 2006
Take Action: Call Your Representative

The House of Representatives is expected to vote on Wednesday on a cynical, opportunistic bill based on scare tactics and questionable science. This is nothing new for the 109th Congress—an alliance of legislators we can't say goodbye to soon enough.

Poking their noses into people's private lives and trying to control women's bodies has been a popular pastime of our government leaders, particularly since George W. Bush set foot in the White House. Now, the House will take up what's known as the "Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act" (HR 6099). As usual, the deceit starts with the title itself, which uses the word "unborn child" when it should say "fetus."

Introduced by arch abortion rights foe Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), the legislation would force physicians to provide misleading and manipulative information to women seeking abortions at 20 weeks or more after fertilization. The bill calls for doctors to give patients a brochure with language scripted by anti-abortion legislators, not physicians. Despite the inability to support such a claim medically, the text of this brochure tells each woman that her "unborn child" will experience pain while "being killed in an abortion." The doctor would then be required to offer the woman anesthesia or another "pain reducing drug" to be administered directly to the fetus.

"This legislation is designed to intimidate women, and add the cost of expensive anesthesia, so that abortion will be too high-priced for many women to afford," said NOW President Kim Gandy, who noted that each woman must sign a consent form affirming that she has read a statement which includes inflammatory phrases and calculating language, like "the process of being killed in an abortion" and "the pain-capable unborn child."

Read the rest at NOW's site.

But I clipped this long post to bring you an update. Guess who isn't working against this bill? NARAL. Shocked? Me too.

While the measure has provoked strong opposition from Planned Parenthood and the National Abortion Federation, NARAL Pro-Choice America, perhaps the nation's leading abortion rights group, has stayed neutral.

"Pro-choice Americans have always believed that women deserve access to all the information relevant to their reproductive health decisions. For some women, that includes information related to fetal anesthesia options," Nancy Keenan, NARAL's president, has said in a statement on the bill.

Democratic leaders cited NARAL's position when they decided against trying to influence the vote. Democratic leadership aides said yesterday that they are leery of Republicans charging that they are already out of touch with mainstream values, even before they assume power.

This is a great chance for the Dems and all pro-choice groups to get together and talk science. There is a difference between the pain we feel as born human beings and any pain that we may experience in utero. Many scientists have said that we continue to develop our pain senses once we get OUT of the womb. I just heard someone on NPR and don't have time to dig it up. I'm all for full information, if that information has good science behind it. And so far, I haven't seen any good science to back up a reason for a fetal pain bill.

Labels: abortion, feminism

If there was ever any doubt in anyone's mind that the fundamentalists in this country cared about anything but outlawing abortion read about how the President-elect of the Christian Coalition resigned because the organization didn't want to address poverty (a very Christian thing to care about, right?) and the environment in the Chronicle of Philanthropy:

The Rev. Joel Hunter, senior pastor of a large church in Orlando, Fla., said he had wanted to focus on issues like poverty and the environment as a way to expand the organization’s agenda beyond opposition to abortion and gay marriage. But he said he now believes the group is unwilling to move in that direction.

“At first it seemed like they were open to that,” Mr. Hunter told NPR’s All Things Considered. “But when it came down to it, they just couldn’t quite go there. The phrase that was used was, ‘Those are fine issues, but it’s just not us, that’s not our base.’”

That's not our base?

Seriously. Print out this story and show it to your right winger friends who still maintain that the fundies are only looking to make this world a more loving and GOD-filled world. Show them their WWJD bracelets from their jewelry boxes and ask them "What do you think Jesus would choose?" Banning abortion or addressing poverty?

Because maybe if we addresses poverty women wouldn't feel like they had to choose between continuing a pregnancy and feeding their other kids? Hmmm?? Maybe??

Those people are screwed up. And finally someone called them on it. HT to the hubby for bringing me up to date on the world while I was in a training all day.

Labels: abortion, feminism

Election day was such a moment. Not only did the Dems win back the House and Senate, but it appears to be an odd moment for the Dems themselves.

In the mainstream and alternative media, there seems to be a consensus that the Dems won with an anti-war & anti-corruption mandate. So why is the mainstream media also firm that moderate-to-conservative Dems are the reason we won?

As readers know, I'm not the happiest camper with DCCC chair, Rahm Emanuel, especially what he did to IL's 6th district. Which is why I'm still trying to sort all this media coverage out when the mainstream media is crowning Rahm, ignoring Howard Dean's 50 state strategy, and cheering on moderate Dems.

I caught John Nichols on FAIR's podcast yesterday talking about this very thing. Thank the goddess! I was starting to feel like just a sore loser celebrating a moral victory/someone else's lose. The IL 6th district was the center of Rahm's strategy. And he lost.

Emanuel poured as astonishing $3 million into her campaign. It bought her a three-point defeat.

And I'm sure that is not even counting all the GOTV efforts that various pro-choice/feminist orgs put into this race. I have a friend who worked HARD on this campaign and I know it was tough for her because she was such a Christine fan. But she was one of the many who licked her wounds and kept on fighting for the party's sake. Or even just to fight against Roskam. I don't blame her at all, in fact I admire her ability to do that. I guess that's why she's more of a politician than I am.

Sheldon Drobny as even more to say about Rahm's crowning.

The fact is that Emanuel's cause is his own power and control. How could the chair of the DCCC put cronyism before country and party? Emanuel may have fooled the nation and his colleagues in the House, but many of us know him as an old time Chicago party hack which was his prime duty as an advisor to President Clinton. He made millions of dollars as an investment banker after leaving the Clinton adminstration. When he ran for Congress in 2002 he called me for financial support and I gave him the maximum contribution. One year later when I was forming Air America Radio I called him for financial help and I got the cold shoulder. He was not the slightest bit interested in progressive talk radio.

Emanuel has opposed Howard Dean's 50-state strategy for the Democratic party, which again shows his short-sighted approach to politics. The Democrats have an excellent opportunity to influence red state voters and build a lasting foundation for the Democratic party. This falls directly against Emanuel's philosophy of concentrating money and power into proteges of Emanuel's. This policy is inopposite to a sensible 50 state grass roots strategy as suggested by Dean.

I've heard some activists say that we have to win the Congress back first, then we can deal with this infighting. That we need a Congress that is in the Dems hand and then all of our issues will be safe.

So here it is boys. You have the Congress in hand. You promised to protect abortion rights - of course you also pushed anti-choice candidates on us (Casey). You talk about how wrong this war is - but fail to give us a solid answer on withdrawal.

Sometimes it is really true, careful what you wish for. I'm a progressive feminist Democrat. And I believe that it is time to deal with these issues as a party. Yes, we have a huge tent, but let's get down and dirty. Will we be the party that protects teenagers from back alley abortions? Will we be the party that says we can't export democracy with shock and awe? Will we be the party to reclaim family values by truly valuing all families with paid parental leave, quality healthcare, and marriage equality? Because I'm one Democrat who would rather be screwed by an anti-choice GOP Congress than an anti-choice Dem Congress.

Game on.

Labels: abortion, feminism

Even before we knew that the Dems had taken both the Senate and the House, the media was hailing Rahm Emanuel as the architect of this win and also the recruiter of the new beast: the moderate Democrat. You know, he's (all the ones who won are men) the guy who wants restrictions on abortion (just for the poor or young women), loves his guns (sure, put them protesters in a free speech zone, but lay off my gun!), and of course, thinks that civil unions is good enough for now (or just hates them gays outright!). CNN lists 6 Rep-elects (Ellsworth & Donnelly(IN), Mahoney (FL), Perlmutter (CO), Yarmuth (KY) and Shuler (NC)) and 2 Senator-elects (Casey (PA) and Tester (MT).

On the other end of the dial, the Progressive Democrats of America boasts 1 Senator-elect and 2 Rep-elects in their win pile (Brown (OH), Hall (NY) and McNerney (CA) respectively).

So who wins?

The PDA says:

PDA National Board Members Rep Barbara Lee and Lynn Woolsey, Co-Chairs of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC), anticipate adding at least seven new CPC Members in the 110th Congress. This would increase the size of the CPC to at least 71 Members, making it by far the largest and most diverse sub-group among all Democrats in the new 110th Congress to take office in January and an increase of 14 new House Members in just the past 18 months.

To add more food for thought, Tom Perriello, Senior Advisor and Co-Founder of the Catholic Alliance for the Common Good, on Democracy Now! says:

One of the things people are saying that I think is incorrect is that the Democrats won this election by running a bunch of conservatives and by running a bunch of moderates. If you actually look at who it was that was swinging in this vote, it was actually that there was massive turnout of a lot of people who were motivated by some of the deepest principles of progressive thinking, even in the red states.

What you had was, for example, people like Ted Strickland and Sherrod Brown essentially ran as what one person called “ethical populists.” You had people who were not running to the middle, but actually running to their principles. And what we found with religious voters is that they care much more about right and wrong than about right and left, which means that you can have some centrist candidates who do well, but you can also have some very progressive candidates that, by sticking to their values, they actually gain more than they would by running to the middle. Tim Cain won as governor in Virginia last year, which is my home state, by opposing the death penalty in a pro-death penalty state, because people cared a lot more about him standing for his principles than they cared about the issue.

We can all see by the numbers that the country is split, blue/red. Is the Democratic party split the same way? Hell yes. Is it a problem? Only for people who think that a political party means being sheep. If we're all thinking the same way, we're never going to come up with new ideas. Group-think isn't good for intelligence matters and it is certainly not good for policy. I would hope thou that sooner than later, all those liberal GOP'ers would just pack up their bags and head on over to the Dems side. I'll trade Christie Tood Whitman for Zell Miller, ok?

When I look local, I see my fabulous Senator Durbin recruiting moderate candidates. He hand picked Tammy Duckworth and some others. I love the man, seriously I do. But I hate that he keeps going back down the moderate aisle when there are perfectly good candidates in the liberal aisle.

So what's next? As a friend in DC said in an email, we have to consider them all moderates and pull them left on this issue and that issue. And hope they stay put for some time.

Labels: abortion, feminism

I finally got a chance to read Rebecca Traister's piece in Salon on Hillary Clinton and her "feminist" problem. It's really thought provoking and one that I think would be an excellent final exam in any women's studies & political science course. If I were teaching my students would find this article and one question: "What do you think?"

And here's what I think. I think that she's on to something. In today's political climate we may be unable to love a candidate with all of our heart. With the polarization that has occurred and the risk that is real, can we afford to NOT support a candidate because they don't support some key issues? Here are two examples:

1) Chicago is in Cook County and we have our county President up for election in November. A quick summary is this: 2 Dems ran in the primary. One (the incumbent Prez) had a stroke 1 week before the primary. His campaign & family led the public to believe he would be ok. The challenger was a pretty darn good progressive candidate with reform on the mind. The challenger lost, by a hair, and there were rumors about voter fraud. So after a few months of no one seeing the Prez, he resigns from his position & withdraws from the race. What happens next? His son is chosen by "The Party Machine" to fill his dad's spot on the ballot. This has angered many a voter, even those of us who are generally ok with the corruption that is Chicago politics. So what is a good progressive to do? Cindy Richards of the Sun-Times and who is an awesome feminist is voting for the anti-choice and anti-gay Republican candidate:

What would a Cook County government run by a Republican look like? It's hard to know. But it's possible it could employ far fewer people. And those it does employ might be there because they know how to run something other than a political machine.

I have voted for only a handful of Republicans, always on the state or national level, never on the local level. So this will be a first for me.

Am I troubled by Peraica's position on gays and abortion? Yes. Do I believe him when he says he won't mess with the status quo on either? I have to.

And, the sad reality is, even with a Democrat as board president, abortion was hardly big business at county hospitals. While pro-choice groups have endorsed Stroger because they fear what a county run by Peraica will mean for women's reproductive health, this is one time I have to say that abortion cannot be the only issue in this race. If the county doesn't get fixed, we may find ourselves living in a place that meets only the needs of the people who line their pockets with county cash.

Will I regret voting for Peraica? Again, it's impossible to know. Ask me again in four years when, I hope, I will have the option of voting for a qualified Democratic reformer to run this $3 billion county government in a way that serves the people rather than the political insiders.

<--snip-->

It's hard to believe that a Croatian immigrant who has served just one term as a county commissioner could do all that in so relatively little time. But, by all estimates, Peraica has proved to be smart, hardworking and attentive to details. In short, everything Stroger is not.

Stroger, whose only qualification for this office is that his daddy held the job before him, is running a dead heat against Peraica, according to the Tribune poll released Monday. Stroger polled 39 percent, Peraica polled 36 percent and Don't Know polled 22 percent. The margin of error of 5 percentage points makes it a virtual tie.

<--snip-->

We finally understand that we might have a choice and that it might a difference if someone other than the guy anointed in the back room deal is running the show.

Will I vote for Peraica? I doubt it. Will I vote for Stroger? I highly doubt it.

2) Next year Da Mayor & all of our aldermen (even the women are aldermen) are up for election. There's a pretty progressive woman running against a do-nothing alderman (yeah, hard to guess who specifically, huh?). I heard about her in maybe January. Went to one of her first meetings and thought that I might want to get involved. Then she went and backed a totally party-backed Congressional candidate against a real grassroots candidate. I was pissed. And hurt. And betrayed. How can a candidate say there are reformers and back a party anointed candidate? Well that goes to party politics and the need for the party if she's going to unseat an alderman whose been in that position forever.

Do I support this candidate? Yes. I totally understand why she made the decisions she made. When you're the David in a fight, you need all your friends. Do I worry about her not being reform enough due to having to scratch someone's back? Well, yes...Power corrupts and the path to power is full of corruption. But I think the good she can do for this city outweighs the bad she may do. I have to give her a chance. She can't be any worse than anyone else out there. And she's way better than anyone else out there.

And that brings us to Traister's conclusion:

Where women are now is a hell of a lot closer to political equity, or at least to the executive branch of government, than we've ever been before. That's good news. But it's painful, too. Fourteen years with Hillary Clinton has shown us exactly how much easier it is to hold fast to our politics when we're on the outside looking in. Get within striking distance of the center of power, we face a paralysis of political idealism: What do we give up to get inside? Do we have to bastardize our beliefs to do it? If Clinton is balancing her political ambitions with the principles that motivated her to enter politics in the first place, then perhaps she still does have something in common with feminists: We are balancing our ambitions for her, and ourselves, with the ideals that motivated us to first invest in her.

The reality is we are probably going to vote for her if she is the Democratic nominee, even if we have to hold our noses. Ephron told me she remains lukewarm on the former first lady, but added that "if she comes around on the war, I'm there. And if she gets the nomination, of course I'll vote for her. And I'll give her money. I'm a Democrat."

So maybe that's it. She's a Democrat. She's a woman. So she's not exactly what we thought she could have been, or as Tony Curtis might have said, what we thought we could have been. But in the end, Clinton may just beat the alternative. By a hair.

Added: Allison Hantschel asks if she's a bad feminist for not supporting Hillary's run for President. I say no. But I do want to ask everyone who is pondering this question: Where were you when Carol Moseley Braun ran? Allison mentions Shirley Chisholm, but since then we've had Carol and Patricia run for President. We're not totally lacking, but Hillary's the best shot women have at taking the White House. I'm not saying I want her to be President ok? Just throwing out food for thought.

Labels: abortion, feminism, feministcard

Disclaimer: I did not record our conversation, but took some good notes. Ms. Hyde knows to contact me if I have misrepresented anything at all. And if I do, I apologize. And I have edited for length sense. Seriously, I have!

(After all the hi's and pleasantries...)
E: So tell me about your blog...

R: Um...(stalling because I was NOT expecting that question at all!), it's really just a small personal blog where I discuss politics, feminism, baseball, and the ups and downs of being a mom.

What did you think when your publishers told you that they wanted to shop this book around to blogs for reviews?

E: I was thrilled! I think that its great that blogs are being used. There is so much said in intelligent ways on blogs, of course after you figure out which ones to read. I'm still a neophyte with the internet. I'm working on my own website and maybe a blog. It is overwhelming.

R: It really is. Good luck on your site. I have to tell you that I'm not a regular mystery, murder mystery, detective novel reading person. I'm more into sci-fi. So thank you to you and your publishers on getting me out of my comfort zone.

I know that you have been asked this question before, but why did you decide to focus this novel around an abortion provider?

E: I had been skirting the issue in at least one previous book, maybe two. I've always found the "will she or won't she" debate in novels to be not very interesting. It became more interesting for me to get into someone's head and especially into the heads of those around a provider (anti's, young women's parents, family members) who are involved in the process. There are just so many angles to explore.

R: Diana Duprey, the abortion provider, decides to carry her Down Syndrome baby to term and gives birth to Ben. In the novel this causes a lot of fan fair. I've met other mother activists who wrestle with the notion/idea that we use our kids as props - intentionally or not. We're aware that others judge us as feminists and sometimes are out to prove that we really are pro-choice and not pro-abortion. Did you write Diana as someone who fell victim to the pressure to prove the anti's wrong? That she wasn't all about abortions?

E: I didn't intentionally develop that part of Diana. I did want to make everything as difficult as possible. What could be more difficult than having an abortion provider have a much wanted pregnancy with a Down's baby? She wanted to keep Ben. I think it even surprised her at the decision. After having Megan, Diana was surprised that she changed her mind about her personal decision to have an abortion.

R: Diana's decision to have Ben was a focal point of tension in her marriage. I read Frank as a character who had an issue with his masculinity. He didn't feel that he had any say in his marriage, how Megan was raised (Diana let Megan chose her middle school), and even to have their house on a local historical tour. What were your thoughts when you created Frank?

E: I didn't see Frank's issues as having anything to do with his masculinity. I saw him as a repressed person. Diana did a lot to bring him out of his shell. She did dominate the marriage which built up resentment. I see his issues stemming more from him being an introvert and Diana being an extrovert.

R: The relationship between Diana and Megan is part stereotypical and part not so much. How many moms would share a joint with her daughter? Did you talk to any daughters of providers, sex educators, or just very pro-choice feminists?

E: No. That was all imagination. I did have a nurse-midwife consult on the book. And I have daughters.

R: As a mother to a 3-year-old, one of my biggest fears is that I'll never find the right tone to talk to her about sex and if I do, she'll run the other way.

E: Oh, you have no idea how hard it is!

R: Diana seems to treat Megan as a patient with her bluntness around sex.

E: Yes. I think that Megan wishes Diana used more discretion.

R: So what did you read growing up?

E: A lot of girl on the frontier books, Little House on the Prairie, Maud Hart Lovelace...I read Tom Sawyer over and over. Little Women. JD Salinger. And of course, I went through my Kurt Vonnegut phase.

R: I've read in an interview online that you never wanted to be a lawyer, but a writer. So the first chance you got to jump off the law track, you did. How did that happen?

E: I've always wanted to be a writer. As cheesy as it sounds, I have a love affair with books and writers. I never thought that I would be a writer. My uncle, Dayton Hyde, is a writer. Writing was just always nagging me. I went to the Bread Loaf Writers' Conference three years in a row. John Irving was very encouraging. When I was still a lawyer, I decided to carve out time for my writing. So I would get up at 6 am and write for an hour before starting the rest of my day.

R: I know you said in another interview that your research was mostly from reading biographies and other books. If you were to write this book again, would you interview providers or spend time at a clinic? Do you think that Diana and her family is reflective of families of providers?

E: I've wondered about that. Two things are significant. 1) I decided to write this novel without knowing a provider. They live such threatened lives. These people put their lives on the line each day. I knew that it would be hard to get past the privacy that the feel. I did have a thought of working in a clinic, but that never happened. And that is a good thing. This way I was able to develop Diana as a character and not built on any one person I knew.

I read Absolute Convictions by Eyal Press earlier this year. It is a great book and also validated Diana's character. I'm pretty confident that I wrote a novel that shows how one provider was and how one family felt. So yes, I feel that it is pretty true to life.

R: Have you gotten any feedback from providers? Anyone contact you to say, "I loved it!" or "I hated it!"?

E: No, no providers have contacted me. It'll be interesting to see if any do. I am doing a benefit reading for a Boulder women's health clinic.

R: My last question is this: One pivitol and impressionable scene is Megan's memory of seeing a bucket of fetus parts at her mom's clinic. As someone who is obviously a pro-choice feminist, are you scared that the anti's will seize that scene and use it against the reproductive justice movement?

E: Oh, good question. No. I write from a lot of different perspectives. As a 13-year-old girl it would be freigthening to see that. Anyone can interpret the book they way they want to. I personally wouldn't mind if the anti's picked up this book. If they use that scene to use in furthering their own agenda, that's a pretty shallow read. Pure political posturing.

R: Thank you so much for your time and our conversation. I want to ask one more last thing. Did you read Katha Pollitt's op-ed a few weeks ago about her bad review in the NYTimes? She talked about the stress of watching her book on the Amazon.com list. Do you do that?

E: *chuckles* No, I didn't read it. I'll have to go look for it. My husband checks Amazon every morning and reports back. I'm not sure what the numbers mean. Soon after the book came out, I was fairly way up. I've been told that if you're not in the top 20 or so, the ranking doesn't mean a thing. When was that op-ed? I'll have to look in the archives.

R: *chuckles* Katha's op-ed was a few weeks in the NYTimes. Thanks again for your time. I'll be posting the review and this conversation in the next day or so. Feel free to contact me with any corrections.

E: Thanks, Roni. Bye.

R: Thanks. Bye.




Other interviews of Elisabeth: Borzoi Reader | Bookreporter.com

Labels: abortion, Books

Disclaimer: The publisher sent me an email asking me to review the book. This isn't a book I would have picked up on my own. Did I get paid? Well in one free book and an excellent discussion with the author.

The mystery hinges on who killed Diana Duprey, abortion provider, mother to a typical college freshman, wife to an attorney in the D.A's office, and overall outspoken feminist. Of course her husband finds her and is immediately put at the top of the suspect list. Considering that "from 1993 to 1999 intimates killed 45% of all female murder victims age 20-24" (BJS)it is not that far off to suspect the husband. Of course, to add to the drama, Dr. Duprey had a fight not just with her husband, Frank, before her death, but also her daughter, Megan. And of course, let's not count out the anti's!

Nothing I say here is a spoiler - a lot of this is either in the first chapter or the summary on the book cover.

The most typical, but also shocking item about the mother-daughter fight was that Megan keeps running over and over in her head the last thing she said to her mom, "Have fun killing babies today!"

And that bit sets up why I liked this book. I felt that this mystery, this novel, not only gave a spin at a "Who Done It?" but it did a pretty damn good job at speaking to the larger question, "What is it like to love an abortion provider?" I'm not just talking the love that I feel for all of you abortion providers out there, but to be the partner or child of one. Perhaps even more specifically, the husband of an outspoken feminist who happens to provide abortions and the daughter of a often too honest feminist when it comes to sex.

Frank seems caught up in feeling that he lived his life being ruled by Diana's feminist ways. That Diana was too liberal with Megan, that Diana made one HUGE decision for possibly political reasons, and honestly, a bit of that thing men get when their wives are "famous".

Obviously these subplots dug themselves right under my skin. I have a good friend who we've already discussed taking her daughter (6 mos older than Ella) and Ella to Planned Parenthood when puberty hits so that they know 1) where it is and 2) that they can see that PP is where the information is at. Somehow even thou I picture a wonderful girls day out in my head, my head also tells me that we'll end up dragging a pair of 10 year olds into Planned Parenthood. Or chasing them down after they make a run for it.

Then there is the hubby. As much as I know he loves me, I know that it's a pain in the ass to live and love someone like me. Someone who considers every aspect of the decision, including the feminist ramifications. From what nail polish to buy to naming rights of offspring, everything I do is viewed thru the feminist lens. Not to say that everything I do is feminist, oh, no...not even close. Well, maybe if I lived the "choice feminist" lifestyle, which I don't. Back to the topic at hand...

It wasn't the murder mystery that kept me turning the pages, it was the mystery between the main characters. Why does Frank have so much anger towards Diana? Why did Megan say that to her mom? Do Frank & Megan even have a relationship?

I could short change this novel by saying that it is a good beach book. It is, but I think it is much more than that. A beach book doesn't make you stop and think. This one does.

I'll get more into that in my next post...a conversation with the author, Elisabeth Hyde.

Labels: abortion, Books

Bayh (D-IN)
Byrd (D-WV)
Carper (D-DE)
Conrad (D-ND)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Inouye (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)--> Example of woman does not = feminist
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reid (D-NV) --> "Our" Senate leader
Salazar (D-CO)

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 109th Congress - 2nd Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate

Vote Summary

Question: On Passage of the Bill (S. 403, As Amended )
Vote Number: 216 Vote Date: July 25, 2006, 06:56 PM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Bill Passed
Measure Number: S. 403 (Child Custody Protection Act )
Measure Title: A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit taking minors across State lines in circumvention of laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions.
Vote Counts:
YEAs 65
NAYs 34
Not Voting 1

Labels: abortion

I. I've been closely watching Kameron's saga of dealing with diabetes. I first started reading her because she's a fellow feminist sci-fi lover and get this, actually writes the stuff! So it was funny to see her blog about not dying after 20 minutes on the elliptical today. I'm proud to report that I finally made it to the gym today to log my own time on the elliptical - 25 minutes. Add to that a 10-15 walk there and back. Woohoo! Last week I swam 2-3 days for about 15 minutes each. I always, always forget how hard I have to work to move my fat ass across a pool. "It's water, you're floating!" Um, no. I'm also walking more with Miss Ella and a bit faster now that she's fallen in love with her 2-wheeler bike (with training wheels) and is a lil speed demon. I bet that I'm doing a 15-min mile now if not more. But that's what I'm logging in my exercise diary.

What is really pissing me off about this diet is always being hungry. So I'm eating about 1200-1500 calories a day and exercising at least 30-60 minutes a day (Spark lets you count all activity including housework or just chasing Ella around!). Compare that to when I was eating most likely 3,000++ and sitting on my ass all day. Half the calories and a million times the exercise. And I don't just craze things like Nutty Bars (oh, how you taunt me in the snack machine!), oh, no...I crave things like apples, bananas, string cheese! I really hope my body gets use to this new food intake soon. Or else I'm going to break down and eat a box of HoHos!

II. I'm glad that we visited NOLA while I could. Now with Gov. Blanco signing the abortion ban, I have to put Louisiana on the boycott list. South Dakota was easy to put on my boycott list. But NOLA? Now that I've experienced your yummy goodness and witnessed the best wedding EVER? I guess I'll have to wait for Emeril to bring NOLA up north.

III. The big news in Chicago today is a "shocking" report that says gangs are moving into the suburbs. Shocking! Having grown up in a poor-to-working class 'burb, I laugh at this report. Because where there is poverty, there will be gangs. I lived on the 'good side' of town and I only know this because my parents forbid me to ever take my body over the big road into the 'bad side' of town where there were 2-3 housing complexes that housed gang bangers or wanna bes. Knowing that 2-3 of my aunts & their families also lived on that side was always unnerving to me. How long until my cousin starts flashing signs? To my knowledge, none did. Then again, I didn't hang too much with my cousins. By middle school a few of my girlfriends were drawing gang signs on notebooks and teaching me signs. Did I ever really buy into it? Nope. I 'sold out' and hung with the rich kids. At least the rich kids who didn't buy into the gangs. I'm sure there were some who did. I did my best to be ignorant of all that crap.

IV. I ended up deciding that money is #1 at the moment and used one Southwest credit to get my body to Albany and paid for the other half of the ticket. $200 roundtrip was about $100 less than the cheapest flight I could find. It really sucks. Oh well. At least I have 1/2 my ticket for Christmas paid for.

Labels: abortion

Recent events have made a lot of feminist bloggers crazy with this post or that post on the multiple offenses made on women today. We have the insanity of blocking the morning after pill that REDUCES the need for abortion, we have crazies who want to ban abortion, the paparazzi have been so insane towards Britney that even I'm feeling bad for the poster child for bad motherhood, we're all pre-pregnant, we're evil if we don't breastfeed, and of course selfish if we ask for help.

And sadly I have yet to see (please correct me if I'm wrong as I so don't have time to read it all!) a good piece putting all these puzzle pieces together. When I do it in my head it spells out one thing.

WE ARE BUT WOMBS

Yes, I think that this hyperactivity that is coming from the government and other sources is all about reducing each and every one of us to our womb. Complain too much about childcare? Stay home. What do you mean you can't pump at work? Stay home. Can't afford to have another kid because daycare is too expensive? Stay home. Oh, your male partner doesn't earn enough? Well if women weren't pulling down wages, we could pay men a family wage.

And no this isn't just Roni going off the deep end. I had a good long drive today since I had to be out in the burbs. I got to thinking about absolutes. The Right uses absolutes perfectly. Terrorism? "You're with us or against us." Abortion? "Selfish bitch." Welfare? "Pull YOURSELF up by your bootstraps." Immigration? "It's illegal, go home!" And I'm sure we can go on and on about their lack of gray areas. Us progressive liberals see those fuzzy areas and attempt to deal with them. We want to deal with the bigger picture. But we also then are heard in absolutes. "Abortion on demand" "Amnesty!" on and on...

What can be more absolute than to render us to being barefoot and pregnant? Not much. As much as I work hard to make things better in this world, I don't see the winds bringing real good news. I see those in charge, GOP and Dems, who don't want to move this country forward.

OK maybe I'm having an awfully Eeyore kinda day, but seriously, look around. Look at how infatuated everyone is with our wombs. What the fuck is up with that? We're screwed either way. If we don't want kids, we're pressured. If we do, we're pressured for more and more. And maternal guilt is overwhelming! Can't do this, do that instead.

Maybe, maybe if there appeared to be a REAL move towards paid family leave and family friendly workplaces, then maybe, maybe I'd believe that all of this nonsense was really about what is best of mom and baby. Maybe.

Until then, let's just keep reading between the lines and putting 2 and 2 together. And keep on fighting. And with that, I ask you to please submit your story to this effort that the Center for Reproductive Rights emailed me about:

In October 2006, the Supreme Court will consider outlawing safe second trimester abortions. We need the Court to understand why access to this care must remain legal for the safety of women and their families. If you have had a second trimester abortion, please consider sharing your story in order to help protect this right for others. Ask clinic staff how to share your story. You can email your story to mystory@prochoiceny.org or call to tell us your story at 1-888-644-9344. [link]

Labels: abortion

Yeah, get over it. Kos is my new punching bag. The DNC blow-up doll is out for repairs.

Getting back to my point...According to the Kaiser Daily Network News::

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg at a NARAL Pro-Choice New York event on Thursday criticized abortion-rights supporters who support abortion-rights opponents in elections, saying that supporters must "exercise vigilance" so that lawmakers do not "try to nuance themselves away from that commitment in the interest of political expediency,"

It's official. We're living in a totally, utterly, fucked up time when I agree with Bloomberg. What's next? Newt leading the next immigration rights march?

Labels: abortion

An Indiana mother recently accompanied her daughter and her daughter's boyfriend to one of Indiana's Planned Parenthood clinics, but they unwittingly walked into a so-called "crisis pregnancy center" run by an anti-abortion group, one that shared a parking lot with the real Planned Parenthood clinic and was designed expressly to lure Planned Parenthood patients and deceive them.

The group took down the girl's confidential personal information and told her to come back for her appointment, which they said would be in their "other office" (the real Planned Parenthood office nearby). When she arrived for her appointment, not only did the Planned Parenthood staff have no record of her, but the police were there. The "crisis pregnancy center" had called them, claiming that a minor was being forced to have an abortion against her will.

The "crisis pregnancy center" staff then proceeded to wage a campaign of intimidation and harassment over the following days, showing up at the girl's home and calling her father's workplace. Our clinic director reports that the girl was "scared to death to leave her house." They even went to her school and urged classmates to pressure her not to have an abortion.

The anti-choice movement is setting up these "crisis pregnancy centers" across the country. Some of them have neutral-sounding names and run ads that falsely promise the full range of reproductive health services, but they dispense anti-choice propaganda and intimidation instead. And according to a recent article in The New York Times, there are currently more of these centers in the U.S. than there are actual abortion providers. What's more, these centers have received $60 million in government grants. They're being funded by our tax dollars.

A bill has just been introduced in Congress to stop the fraudulent practices of fake clinics, but it desperately needs more support. Tell your representative to take a stand: anti-choice extremists must not get away with this any longer!

Go to: http://www.ppaction.org/campaign/fakeclinics

My first blog alert from answering on their survey that I'd do stuff like this for them. What fun!

Labels: abortion

First the fundraising pitch:

The National Network of Abortion Funds has created the National Reproductive Justice Fund to help low-income women affected by the South Dakota ban. The new fund will complement the efforts of one of NNAF's member funds, South Dakota Access for Every Woman. "People are already confused and scared -- we've had calls from women who ask if abortion is still legal," cautioned Access for Every Woman's Evelyn Griesse. "If the ban takes effect, more women will need to go out of state and won't be able to afford it, including those that have a job. At the same time, we've had a positive response from donors - people have called from as far away as Philadelphia and Oregon asking how they can help."

The National Reproductive Justice Fund will also assist women facing other extreme obstacles, including women in the eight other states that have similar abortion ban legislation pending - Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Tennessee. Poggi noted that "as with South Dakota, in these states low-income women will be most affected." People seeking to donate to the National Reproductive Justice Fund can contact NNAF at 617 524 6040 or www.nnaf.org.

Now the good news:

Hawaii secures abortion rights!

After heated debate, state senators passed a bill they said will protect Hawaii's abortion law against legal challenges.

"It is important to keep a woman's right to an abortion, safe, legal and accessible," Democratic Sen. Roz Baker said.

The bill eliminates a residency requirement and makes clear that abortions can be preformed in clinics and doctor's offices.

[link]

Thanks to Rose for the heads up!

Finally I can take a vacation without feeling guilty!

Labels: abortion

I have to admit that I've never read Daily Kos. I usually shy away from the A-listers as a habit. It's kinda like shunning the cheerleaders & the real nerds in high school. I went to a weird high school where the A-listers were either cheerleaders or the National Merit folks. I was neither.

Anywho, so I got word that Daily Kos was in town and headed out to check out the new savior of the Progressive movement. You can identify the saviors by the book tours they travel on. I also wanted to ask him "THE QUESTION" in person. Yup, I did. First, Kos started in on why he wrote his book, why he has his blog, why we need a new way of looking at politics, and of course, a new way to organize and elect Democrats to office.

Again, I've never really read his site, but I heard about his dismissal of feminists and abortion rights as a key issue over the summer. As Kos says, "Why do groups like NARAL and HRC have a hard time grasping the big picture?"

At one point, he mentions something about feminists and about not dismissing them. I jump into his speech and ask, "But on your blog, you have been dismissive of feminists and abortion rights." He retorts, "No, I haven't. I'm as pro-choice as anyone else." I can't recall the exact words, but he essentially says that while he's all pro-choice and knows and sees that abortion rights are under attack ("Look at SD!") the thing is that we need to see the big picture.

Here's the big picture:

More Democrats = More rights for women

Gawd damn do I wish it were that simple!

Later in another topic, I interjected that Bob Casey was a bad candidate. Kos looked right at me and said, "He's only wrong on one issue." Meaning abortion. OK, so let's look at Bob Casey's stance on the issues. I'll use NOW issues as that's the organization I hang with the most:

Reproductive Justice (aka choice): opposes a woman's right to abortion, supports protecting human life from conception, supports pro-life pharmacists. F

Equal Rights (aka gay marriage): opposes same-sex marriage, supports hate crime leg that addresses crime again GBLT people. C (see, he's not wrong, just not completely right!)

Economic Justice: Won't support a living wage, opposes CAFTA, opposes universal health care. D (again, he gets partial credit!)

Violence Against Women: His issue page is silent.

Ending Racism: His issue page is silent.

OK, I know it's hard to address racism in a campaign, but it's one of our issues. Part of how you address racism is to address the lack of job training, punitive welfare reform, and other issues that overwhelmingly affect people of color.

sources: Lancaster County Action 2004 Scorecard, Pennacchio for Senate*, Bob Casey for U.S. Senate,

In the end, Bob Casey can't earn an A on one issue. Even his environmental page isn't up to snuff with this former Greenpeace canvasser. It seems pretty good, but investing in new technology won't cut it. We have to put the screws to the automakers to force their hand. OK, so I might give him a B.

But for Kos to say that he's only wrong on one issue is so very wrong. I know we can't get a perfect candidate, but come on, why do we need a candidate like Bob Casey? The only reason Kos and other Dems like him are harping on us feministas is that they know the truth:

"Bob Casey can't win a tough campaign against Rick Santorum without a strong turnout from the pro-choice majority in Pennsylvania," Pennacchio said last week. "Democrats should not repeat the mistake we made in 2000" with Ron Klink.

[link]

But by putting the screws on us now, if Casey loses, the blame put on us will happen so fast, it'll give us all whiplash. "Go ahead ladies, vote thinking only of your wombs! See where that gets you." Or vote for the anti-choice, anti-Roe v. Wade candidate and pray that he won't let yet another anti-abortion USSC Justice on the bench. Oh, wait...he WOULD support justices that have anti-abortion stances.

Just glancing at his opponents' issue pages^ makes it glaringly clear that either of these men would be a better and more progressive candidate than Casey.

In the end, I obviously didn't walk away with a signed copy of his book, but I don't hate the man either. We're in a moment where the DNC has to choose which path to take. And there are many paths to take. Kos just thinks that feminists get in the way with all our concern over abortion rights. I say my uterus takes precedent. So I say that we need a new t-shirt. Instead of this one. We need one that says, "Just say no to sex, with pro-Casey (insert anti-choice Democrat name here) Democrats". See, not just with anti-choice Dems, but with those who support them too.

I'll end quoting one of my favorite bloggers:

For us, this is the big boys selling out our freedom while we’re instructed to sit back and let those with real “commitment to women’s issues” call the shots. And if that doesn’t bring the funny, I don’t know what does.

* remind me that if I ever run for office to hire his oppositional researcher.
^ I *love* that Sandals has an issue chart. Great for skimmers like me.

Labels: abortion

Today NOW PAC and Feminist Majority PAC endorsed long-shot Alan Sandals in the Democratic primary for US Senate in Pennsylvania.

I'm just starting to look into him, but compared to Casey, this guy looks great. You must check out his campaign commercial that talks about a woman's right to choose.

A little background to this race: This is Rick Santorium's seat. Barbara Hafer was leading the pack of Dems until the party forced her out of the race in favor of anti-abortion Robert P. Casey Jr. A few days ago, an op-ed popped into my inbox from a friend asking me why NOW isn't working on Casey's opponent's campaign. From the grapevine, I knew that NOW was working on it and the PAC already has a campaign going on to get us to tell the Dems to stop selling women out. The opponent that the op-ed wrote about is not Sandals. But Sandals is the best candidate out of the 3 for women's rights.

My only issue at the moment is Sandals wishy-washy answer to gay marriage: civil unions with all the benefits of marriage. AKA marriage with a different label. I know a few lesbians in NOW who won't tolerate wishy-washy answers like that, so it'll be interesting to hear what comes across my inbox in the coming days.

But in case you are curious, the NOW PAC lists on their website how candidates are selected. It's a bottom-up approach aka grassroots approach:

Rigorous Criteria
In addition to recommendations from state and local NOW chapters, NOW PACs base their endorsements on a broad feminist agenda. No other PAC expects its candidates to take strong stands on such a wide range of issues. These issues include, but are not limited to:

* reproductive freedom without restriction
* civil rights for all peopleÂ?with emphasis on lesbian and gay rights and racial justice
* moving women out of poverty through empowering, non-punitive welfare policies
* a constitutional amendment that guarantees women's equality, reproductive rights and non-discrimination based on sexual orientation
* affirmative action ensuring equal opportunity for women and people of color
* ending violence against women

After the elections, NOW follows up with the officials NOW PACs helped elect to make sure they are meeting these commitments.

Of course the 3rd wheel in this race is dismissing the endorsements as just another top-down decision:

It could, however, be damaging to Chuck Pennacchio, who also supports abortion rights and has run a spirited grassroots campaign for the Democratic nod. Pennacchio dismissed the endorsement of Sandals as a "top down decision" that doesn't reflect the will of women voters he's trying to reach.

"This is just the way national organizations have been treating this race," Pennacchio said.

And as I just said, the NOW PAC endorsement is normally brought to the PAC by local NOW members. Sorry Pennacchio...this might be a point where there are 2 camps of women organizing, but not an example of DC pushing their agenda on a local community. Let's leave that to the national parties.

Labels: abortion

The 4th Annual "Pro-Life" T-shirt Day is set for April 25th. See http://www.nationalprolifetshirtday.com/index.php for details.

So, get your credit cards out and buy a new t-shirt for the day. I know you have at least one, right?

NOW Store

Feminist Majority Store

Planned Parenthood Store

"I had an abortion" t-shirt

Cafe Press has a zillion of them.

Labels: abortion